 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2004American vs German Quality
Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of American vs German automobiles? I think is a myth that country-of-origin has any significance whatsoever regarding the merit of automotive product. There are certain differences, to be sure; for example: The front suspension lower control arms on the old Mercedes sedans appears to be a forging. American design practice is pressed steel. But is this significant? Might they both be equal in real quality even though the forgings are obviously more expensive to produce? Perhaps this is just overkill. On real quality issues, like redundant ignition and fuel system components, both are equally deficient. With some mainstream luxury cars approaching the 100K mark we still see not aircraft design practice. Only aircraft pricing. > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > American vs German automobiles? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the 100K mark we still see not aircraft design practice. Only aircraft > pricing. You'd love a 100K aircraft. It buys you technology from the 30's. Reliability: Mass produced vehicles are built with one goal in mind. That goal is is to make a profit for the manufacturer. Regular maintenance will help you get the most value from any vehicle except perhaps the Yugo. Anyone should be able to get 100,000 miles or 10 years out of a car today. A well maintained car should give you at least 200,000 miles. Mercedes has its problems. Ask anyone who has purchased one of their SUV's ( I forget which model recently had so many issues). Ford had brake rotor warp, head gasket issues, cracked manifolds, and tranny trouble DCX / Mopar has / had issues with tranny's in minivans, steering racks and A/C trouble in LH series cars. GM has tranny problems, cracked manifolds, electrical trouble and more. Rice can do no wrong. Tell that to the guy next door the next time his Honda won't start and get him to work. A chronic problem no one can fix. Pick your poison. Steve > Reliability: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Anyone should be able to get 100,000 miles or 10 years out of a car today. > A well maintained car should give you at least 200,000 miles. > Mercedes has its problems. Ask anyone who has purchased one of their SUV's ( I > forget which model recently had so many issues). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > DCX / Mopar has / had issues with tranny's in minivans, steering racks and A/C > trouble in LH series cars. > GM has tranny problems, cracked manifolds, electrical trouble and more. > > Rice can do no wrong. > Tell that to the guy next door the next time his Honda won't start and get him > to work. A chronic problem no one can fix. What about when his Honda's transmission quits? Or maybe when his Camry's engine is filled with sludge. Mitsu, well, they're just junk. VWs on the otherhand come pre-disassembled. Who are you and why do you pose stupid questions to various newsgroups? Just wondering. > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > American vs German automobiles? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the 100K mark we still see not aircraft design practice. Only aircraft > pricing. > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > American vs German automobiles? It is provable, that it is in people`s minds. Over here, people say It"s full of plastic." when they think of american cars. What they forget .. a mercedes is full of plastic too - it only looks different.  SignatureTalk To You Later ... Hans from Germany ******* PT Cruiser 2.0 Limited ******** *** United we Stand. Divided we Fall. *** ************* (214 to go) ************* Hans Mücke <hawkeyeSPAMIT.pierce@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<coc7fh$ocv$05$1@news.t-online.com>... > > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > > American vs German automobiles? > > It is provable, that it is in people`s minds. Over here, people say It"s > full of plastic." when they think of american cars. What they forget .. a > mercedes is full of plastic too - it only looks different. I used to believe that German autos were much more reliable than their American counterparts. However, after having friends that have owned Mercedes', Audi's, and water-cooled Volkswagons with their various problems, I don't feel that way anymore. The old air-cooled beetles had a reputation for being reliable, most likely due to there very simple design. I don't have any friends that own or have owned BMW's. -Kirk Matheson > Hans M?cke <hawkeyeSPAMIT.pierce@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<coc7fh$ocv$05$1@news.t-online.com>... > > > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > > > American vs German automobiles? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -Kirk Matheson I have two VW's. a Dodge minivan, and a Mercury Grand Marquis. I've had very little trouble with any of them. There is no reason not to believe Consumer Reports' and J.D. Powers' findings that certain makes of Japanese cars have the best quality. The thing is, the quality of all cars has improved so much over the last 20 years that, with any luck, you can buy any brand, take care of it, and have a reliable car. According to C.R. et. al., VW is among the worst of brands of cars sold in the U.S., but my Jetta diesel wagon has had zero problems in a year and 14K miles. I had a Lexus IS300 SportCross, and it was not only completely reliable, but the fit and finish were perfect. The "total quaility" of that car was, in fact, better than that of other cars I've had. After having it a few years, I replaced it with the Jetta because I was ready for something different, and which would use half as much fuel. Many people might be surprised to know that the general appearance and comfort of the VW's interior is comparable to that of the Lexus IS300. The IS300 is more "sport" and less "luxury" oriented than other Lexii, but it, and current VW's have very nice interiors. > > Hans M?cke <hawkeyeSPAMIT.pierce@t-online.de> wrote in message > news:<coc7fh$ocv$05$1@news.t-online.com>... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > VW is among the worst of brands of cars sold in the U.S., but my Jetta > diesel wagon has had zero problems in a year and 14K miles. Car is still young, give it another 100K "Kirk Matheson" <kmatheson@sisna.com> wrote in message > I used to believe that German autos were much more reliable than their > American counterparts. However, after having friends that have owned [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Kirk Matheson Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the old air-cooled engines rebuilt every 60,000 miles, maybe a few extra valve jobs thrown in between. I guess that was considered reasonable because the overhaul bill was $200. But I agree, everybody considered them reliable, even though the engine components had no longevity. The simplicity was a big part of that. If it broke down it was always something very simple. Plus, one frat boy could push it. That said, the dribble fuel injection was a big kick in the head for air-cooled VW's. That just ruined the car's rock-simple reputation. They were still popular, but the attitude of people buying them was a lot different. I've never heard anybody say anything good about that change. So when you look at these realities, no to mention the exhaust-fume defroster that could kill you, you can see it wasn't that good of a car. >> Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the old > air-cooled engines rebuilt every 60,000 miles, maybe a few extra valve jobs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > part of that. If it broke down it was always something very simple. Plus, > one frat boy could push it. Air cooled Vee Dubs were a lot more durable than that. Especially the 1200's. They would really last, and were very reliable. > >> Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the old > > air-cooled engines rebuilt every 60,000 miles, maybe a few extra valve [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Air cooled Vee Dubs were a lot more durable than that. Especially the > 1200's. They would really last, and were very reliable. They needed lots of valve adjustments, and relatively frequent oil changes since they had no filter, but if the received the maintenance, they would hold up. I put almost 100K miles on a '65, the last 1200 sold in the U.S., and everything except the clutch and throwout bearing was original. They definitely required lots of routine maintenance, though, compared to today's cars. If you didn't adjust the valves every 10K miles or so, you could very easily end up with a burned valve because they would get too "tight." > > >> Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the old > > > air-cooled engines rebuilt every 60,000 miles, maybe a few extra valve [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > could very easily end up with a burned valve because they would get too > "tight." Not my experience. My valves always got loose, and not that often. > > > >> Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the > old [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Not my experience. My valves always got loose, and not that often. Mine only got tighter than they were set a time or two, but it did happen. Some points of wear make them get tight, and others make them get loose. I probably checked them more often than necessary, but at the time I had more spare time than money. >>>>>>Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > probably checked them more often than necessary, but at the time I had more > spare time than money. I used to work with an avid air-cooled VW aficianado. He insisted that overheating an air-head was the quickest way to cause the valves to "tighten" because the valve stems would actually stretch under the spring tension, allowing the lash clearance to close up and thus leading to a valve leak that would burn a valve. And yes, he was ALWAYS pulling the engines out and doing maintenance. He had over 200k miles on one of them, but probably no more than 30-40 k without some form of fairly major dis-assembly. > >>>>>>Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the > >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > had over 200k miles on one of them, but probably no more than 30-40 k > without some form of fairly major dis-assembly. O.K. I'm curious, what major work was required at 30-40k. I'm assuming we're talking about stock engines and not modified racing one's right? >>>>>>>>Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the >>>> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > O.K. I'm curious, what major work was required at 30-40k. I'm assuming > we're talking about stock engines and not modified racing one's right? Stock engines, and the Bug was a '63 IIRC. The Bus was more like a '68. I don't remember exactly what all he did to them routinely, he was probably more of a maintenance fanatic than he really had to be. He did claim that pulling the engine was far easier than doing ANY work on it in the chassis. He finally replaced the Bus with a Vanagon in the late '80s, and not long after that he got rid of all his VWs. The Vanagon put him off them for good, I'm afraid. > Is there a PROVEABLE difference in Design, Materials, and Fabrication of > American vs German automobiles? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the 100K mark we still see not aircraft design practice. Only aircraft > pricing. Both JD Powers and Consumer Reports have said that the reliablity of German cars has become terrible. The Chrysler division products have scored much better that Mercedes division products in the last couple of years. Hi everybody, I am probably one of the few Germans who, after driving several German made cars (Fords, Audi, Smart) and one Honda, bought 3 American cars. I live in a neighborhood where everybody else works at the local Mercedes plant and drives Mercedes. Not me. I don't like car trouble. Yes, I agree, the overall quality of German cars has deteriorated considerably (see my neighbors complaing about the frequent electronic issues of their cars), and, at the same time, the the price of an average German car rose to unprecedented heights. There is an unholy race going on among the car designers who put more and more electronic gadgets into the cars and at the same time neglect quality control because it costs money. With the Audi, I had frequent minor troubles with the engine (carburator) , the brakes, and the odometer, and the transmission that failed completely. The Honda showed excessive wear on the rocker arms after only 60.000kms, the alternator had to be replaced twice, too. Very expensive!! Both German Ford's steering mechanisms went completely out at 80.000kms and had to be replaced. About 900$ each. They also had frequent minor mechanical problems. Worst car ever is the Smart (a Mercedes affiliate). It is virtually falling aparts when you drive it. You never know what is coming off next. Repairs are very costly, because it is maintained by Mercedes. I first came across an American car when I was looking for a spacious van for familiy transport. I ended up with a 98 Ford Windstar (I had a German Ford station wagons before), which was considerably cheaper, more powerful, and more luxurious than its German counterpart van, a co-production of VW and Ford. Well, the Windstar never let me down, and the only trouble I had within 100000 kms was a speed sensor acting up. No big deal. Maintenance costs were low as well. I sold it when the kids wanted to go their own ways. After my good experiences with the Windstar I bought a Chevrolet Trailblazer, which is quite an exotic model here. I was very pleased by its comfortable ride and the powerful engine. I prefered it to the BMW X5 which was 20.000 Euros (=22.000$) more or the Toyota (same price as the BMW). I use to drive her very hard on the Autobahn (no speed limit!!) and she's pulling my big trailer without problems. No issues so far, its 2 years now with 43000kms on the odometer. Very good built quality, very solid construction. Just recently, I bought a Chrysler Sebring Convertible for my wife (she loves it) and I hope it will be as reliable as the Trailblazer and the Windstar. Conclusion: there is no reason for buying German or Japanese Too many issues, too expensive, bad reliability. > Both JD Powers and Consumer Reports have said that the reliablity of > German cars has become terrible. The Chrysler division products have > scored much better that Mercedes division products in the last couple of > years. > I am probably one of the few Germans who, after driving several German > made cars (Fords, Audi, Smart) and one Honda, bought 3 American cars. I > live in a neighborhood where everybody else works at the local Mercedes > plant and drives Mercedes. Not me. I don't like car trouble. You're not the only one. Take a look here at Peter Wendt's page: http://members.aol.com/peterwendt/usautogw.htm > There is an unholy race going on among the car designers who put more > and more electronic gadgets into the cars and at the same time neglect > quality control because it costs money. This is what happens when lawyers and business-degreed idiots rather than engineers are permitted to direct car companies. DS Don't quite get it. Sustantial complaints about problems and dealers as well as plaudits. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Take a look here at Peter Wendt's page: > > http://members.aol.com/peterwendt/usautogw.htm . > Don't quite get it. Surprise, surprise, surprise...Dori doesn't get it. Go back to sleep, dearie. Sorry to wake you. As you are such a clever-clogs, why don't you explain why the cited website is such a paean to 'American' cars, other than the headline and general criticsm of German cars? The site has extensive descriptions of problems with his American cars. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> Don't quite get it. > > Surprise, surprise, surprise...Dori doesn't get it. > > Go back to sleep, dearie. Sorry to wake you. > As you are such a clever-clogs, why don't you explain why the cited website > is such a paean to 'American' cars, other than the headline and general > criticsm of German cars? The site has extensive descriptions of problems > with his American cars. The list of problems is shorter than the problems he's had with German cars? " For over six years now they see it standing in front of my house or driving away for another working week. In those years lots of Golfs, Kadetts or Vectras have passed away ... ! " > > I am probably one of the few Germans who, after driving several German > > made cars (Fords, Audi, Smart) and one Honda, bought 3 American cars. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://members.aol.com/peterwendt/usautogw.htm Wow, an Spirit was up to a European's standards. When he mentioned "3.0L V6" and " 4-speed automatic gearbox" I was curious that it was his favorite car. Then he mentioned the obligatory transmission failure, which satisfied me. It's a shame the first one was written off with such little (apparent) damage. I also thought it was strange that people would find it odd looking. I've always found the car very non-offensive looking. > > http://members.aol.com/peterwendt/usautogw.htm > > Wow, an Spirit was up to a European's standards. The Chrysler Saratoga (as the car was known there) was equipped similarly to the highest-spec North American Spirits in the suspension, steering, brake, durability and luxury equipment departments, and much better in the seatbelt, lighting, signalling and mirrors department. The majority of North American AA-bodies were low-spec cars with "adequate" brakes, "adequate" suspension, power nothing, etc. Perhaps it's not only American vs. *German*, and perhaps not only very recently. Several years back I met a guy from Ford Australia who told me that they had shipped some Fairlanes (Ford Australia kept reusing that name even when the car bore no resemblance to any US-built Fairlane and when the name had long fallen out of use in the US) to Sweden, and the locals had pronounced them far superior to Volvos. Perce On 11/30/04 03:41 pm A.Muewi tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup: > I am probably one of the few Germans who, after driving several German made > cars (Fords, Audi, Smart) and one Honda, bought 3 American cars. I live in a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Conclusion: there is no reason for buying German or Japanese Too many > issues, too expensive, bad reliability. >>Both JD Powers and Consumer Reports have said that the reliablity of >>German cars has become terrible. The Chrysler division products have >>scored much better that Mercedes division products in the last couple of >>years. > Perhaps it's not only American vs. *German*, and perhaps not only very > recently. Several years back I met a guy from Ford Australia who told me > that they had shipped some Fairlanes (Ford Australia kept reusing that > name even when the car bore no resemblance to any US-built Fairlane and > when the name had long fallen out of use in the US) to Sweden, and the > locals had pronounced them far superior to Volvos. The Australian Ford line contains numerous world-class vehicles, including a full range of up-to-date RWD passenger cars and utes with vastly better performance, economy, ergonomics, emissions and safety than anything Ford sells in the rest of the world. Australia gets a RWD Falcon with 4-litre inline Six (normally aspirated, turbo or supercharged), thoroughly modern in all respects. North America gets the Five Hundred, a warmed-over Taurus. There ain't no justice. > > Perhaps it's not only American vs. *German*, and perhaps not only very > > recently. Several years back I met a guy from Ford Australia who told me [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There ain't no justice. Warmed over Taurus?? I was having my Taurus serviced and saw a 500 on the show line. Hmm, says I, that's nothing but a re-badged Taurus. Dealer asked if I wanted to look at it. I did. It isn't a warmed over Taurus at all, it has a -lot- more room inside, has one of the biggest trunks and is (according to him) based on a volvo platform. Yes, it does bear a resemblance to the Taurus (big strike against) but I don't think it has any Taurus in it. For sure not in the engine/drive train components (again according to the salesman). Harry K > > > Perhaps it's not only American vs. *German*, and perhaps not only very > > > recently. Several years back I met a guy from Ford Australia who told me [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I don't think it has any Taurus in it. For sure not in the > engine/drive train components (again according to the salesman). Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars. It's built on a Volvo platform IIRC, but Daniel insists that it's the same car. > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars. They're both Fords. They're both FWD/AWD. You think "built on a Volvo platform" is a *good* thing? Go look at anybody's reliability ratings for Volvos made in the last 9 years -- they're right down there in the toilet with those for Ford's own products. > > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus > > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Volvos made in the last 9 years -- they're right down there in the toilet > with those for Ford's own products. "Built on a Volvo platform" is a good thing in that the ride and handling will likely be better than the Taurus architecture. Reliablility issues are more a build quality thing than anything else. Time will tell how they do with the 500. > > > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus > > > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars. > > They're both Fords. They're both FWD/AWD. You think "built on a Volvo > > platform" is a *good* thing? Go look at anybody's reliability ratings > > for Volvos made in the last 9 years -- they're right down there in the > > toilet with those for Ford's own products. > "Built on a Volvo platform" is a good thing in that the ride and > handling will likely be better than the Taurus architecture. Could scarcely be worse. > Reliablility issues are more a build quality thing than anything else. Er...no, not really. Reliability issues are more an engineering issue than anything else. Build quality is secondary. > Time will tell how they do with the 500. Exactly. It's WAY too early for anyone to be trumpeting about what a terrific car it is, and Ford's track record is very poor in this class of car in North America. It's sort of the same thing as GM hyping their new Malibu "No, seriously! No, this time we built a *good* car! No, for real! No, you guys, seriously! We totally built a good car this time! It's on a Saab platform. Seriously! No, seriously! No, seriously!" > > The Australian Ford line contains numerous world-class vehicles, > > including a full range of up-to-date RWD passenger cars and utes with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > supercharged), thoroughly modern in all respects. North America gets > > the Five Hundred, a warmed-over Taurus. There ain't no justice. > Warmed over Taurus?? Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same shitty electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting off on the North American market for decades. > I don't think it has any Taurus in it (again according to the salesman) Aw, come on. Use your brain just a LITTLE BIT. If you were trying to sell Fords, would you admit to their being any Taurus "engineering" in the car you were trying to sell? > > > The Australian Ford line contains numerous world-class vehicles, > > > including a full range of up-to-date RWD passenger cars and utes with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting off > on the North American market for decades. You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the AXOD. And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard transmissions on everyone worldwide. Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you can't say it's the same car. > > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same shitty > > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting > > off on the North American market for decades. > You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the AXOD. I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more general level than you are: You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford automatic transaxles". > And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard transmissions > on everyone worldwide. Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords... > Have you even driven a 500? Nope > Or looked at one up close? Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group. > can't say it's the same car. I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a Taurus, but we both know that's not true. > > > Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same shitty > > > electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords... You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. I never see you attacking Chrysler. Why is that? > > Have you even driven a 500? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a > Taurus, but we both know that's not true. 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? > You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used > against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. Neither does GM. > I never see you attacking Chrysler. Why is that? Because you're not looking hard enough, perhaps. Googlegroups is good for that sort of thing. I have attacked Chrysler in *scathing* terms multiple times for multiple reasons over the years. > > I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a > > Taurus, but we both know that's not true. > > 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. ...based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record. > Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has > been pumping out? Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable, good cars. > > You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used > > against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. > > Neither does GM. Agreed. > > 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. > > ...based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record. Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Contrary to your belief, the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles (although they may lack "refinement"). Some models of North American Escort were pretty reliable. Focus isn't bad (although it is based on European design). The F-150 isn't bad. > > Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has > > been pumping out? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable, > good cars. So there's no guarantee that it won't be garbage. > 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. > > Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > > 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. Your reality is not the reality of the fleet managers -- several of them, over the years -- I've spoken with. What's your sample size, there, Bill? One? Two? > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > over the years -- I've spoken with. What's your sample size, there, Bill? > One? Two? Personally 3. One guy is on his 5th CV, his last one had 400 000km and he only got rid of it because it was written off in a crash. It burned a little oil but other than that it was fine. Another guy drives a cab. He used to drive a CV and got 450 000 km trouble free. Last he saw his car (which another cab driver bought), it had another 200 000 km on it. His wife drives a Lincoln Towncar. She has 600 000km trouble free. Many people he knows in the cab industry swears by CVs. A third guy has had several CVs and found them quite reliable. He only got rid of them because he wanted a new car. Plus look at any reliability ratings. Not only the supposedly biased-against-American CR, but any reports on the internet, etc. CV gets high marks for reliability. I don't know what fleet managers you were talking too, but everyone else has had good luck with CVs. > I don't know what fleet managers you were talking too, but everyone else > has had good luck with CVs. Everyone else? Are ya *sure* about that? Or are you only sure about the three you know about? I really have no particularly compelling interest in convincing you that many versions of the Ford Modular V8 are garbage. I'm sure your reality is very real to you, and that's fine. I will say this about the "everyone else" you believe has had "good luck" with Clown Victorias: Luck has nothing to do with it. Engineering quality is what determines reliability. > > I don't know what fleet managers you were talking too, but everyone else > > has had good luck with CVs. > > Everyone else? Are ya *sure* about that? Or are you only sure about the > three you know about? No, I mean everyone else. Check any reliability records on the CV. It scores quite high. > I really have no particularly compelling interest in > convincing you that many versions of the Ford Modular V8 are garbage. Kind of like how you have no compelling interest in convincing me that the 3.0L Vulcan engine is garbage? You still think that, don't you? > Kind of like how you have no compelling interest in convincing me that the > 3.0L Vulcan engine is garbage? Right. I truly don't care what you think. >>Kind of like how you have no compelling interest in convincing me that the >>3.0L Vulcan engine is garbage? > > Right. I truly don't care what you think. Daniel, why do you have to be such a prick? You make a statement and people ask you what you base that statement on. Your reply is basically, kiss my a.s, I don't care what you think. So I'm inclined to discount your opinion entirely. If I want to know about lightbulbs, I'll gladly defer to your experience, but I'm certainly not going to take anything you say about the Ford Modular V8 or 3.0L V6 without some shred of independently verifiable evidence. Your commentary simply doesn't jibe with my day to day experience with either of those engines. Granted, this isn't nearly as interesting as your diatribe on gay (or perhaps not so gay) hollywood legends, but I see a pattern here of you making assertions without any shred of credible evidence. If you don't have any evidence, just say so. No need to be a jerk about it. Cheers, > >>Kind of like how you have no compelling interest in convincing me that > >>the 3.0L Vulcan engine is garbage? > > Right. I truly don't care what you think. > > Daniel, why do you have to be such a prick? Ritz, if you don't like my posts, nobody forces you to read them. > You make a statement and people ask you what you base that statement on. > Your reply is basically, kiss my a.s Try reading harder next time. My response was to provide the basis for my statement. Others then said they don't believe me, and I said "Fine". > I'm inclined to discount your opinion entirely. Fine. DS >>>Kind of like how you have no compelling interest in convincing me that >>>the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > evidence. Your commentary simply doesn't jibe with my day to day > experience with either of those engines. That's Daniel all right, all Fords suck but his 1992 Dodge Omni is the best damn car ever built..... strange Bob > That's Daniel all right, all Fords suck but his 1992 Dodge Omni is the > best damn car ever built..... strange I've never owned an Omni, and that's a model that was discontinued in 1990. Thanks for playing. DS >>I don't know what fleet managers you were talking too, but everyone else >>has had good luck with CVs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Luck has nothing to do with it. Engineering quality is what determines > reliability. Not completely. Assembly quality has an effect on reliability as well. It is still not possible to engineer a design such that it is completely idiot-proof with respect to assembly. Matt >>>>Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it because it was written off in a crash. It burned a little oil but other > than that it was fine. CV? Chrysler Vehicle?? Something else??? Matt > >>>>Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > CV? Chrysler Vehicle?? Something else??? Ford Crown Victoria. >> CV? Chrysler Vehicle?? Something else??? > >Ford Crown Victoria. Hmmmmmmmmm, I thought Ford Crown Victoria was WPC! >>Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all > Fords have. If you're talking about the various incarnations of the 4.6 (single and dual overhead cam), that hasn't been my experience at all. From what source have you drawn this conclusion? Cheers, > > 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. > If you're talking about the various incarnations of the 4.6 (single and > dual overhead cam), that hasn't been my experience at all. That's entirely probable. How many of them have you owned, and for how long? >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's entirely probable. How many of them have you owned, and for how > long? I haven't owned a single one, but I have customers (maybe 20-30) that own those engines in various cars. The last Ford V8 I owned was a fox body Mustang 5.0L, which was a completely different engine. Cheers, > I haven't owned a single one, but I have customers (maybe 20-30) that > own those engines in various cars. Grand. Go talk to motor pool maintenance managers who have to keep hundreds of them on the road. >>I haven't owned a single one, but I have customers (maybe 20-30) that >>own those engines in various cars. > > Grand. Go talk to motor pool maintenance managers who have to keep > hundreds of them on the road. Why don't you have these people tell us what they think or post a citation to a credible source? Thanks, > > Grand. Go talk to motor pool maintenance managers who have to keep > > hundreds of them on the road. > Why don't you have these people tell us what they think Because they're not on Usenet and it's not my job. > or post a citation to a credible source? Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. >>>Grand. Go talk to motor pool maintenance managers who have to keep >>>hundreds of them on the road. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. Translation: You don't have anything to cite. Then you'll pardon my disbelief. Have a nice day. Cheers, >> Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Cheers, Actual translation: You're not worth it! >> Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. > > Translation: You don't have anything to cite. > > Then you'll pardon my disbelief. Just because there isn't a handy citation somewhere in the magical world of cyberspace doesn't mean that a statement is untrue. I have also talked to some fleet maintainers who found that in the early years of the Modular they need to keep a strangely large supply of important parts on hand compared to the previous Ford engines and compared to GM and Chrysler engines. >>> Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > parts on hand compared to the previous Ford engines and compared to GM > and Chrysler engines. Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. Perhaps you can convince your "fleet maintainer" to post some thoughts about their experiences.... Cheers, > > Just because there isn't a handy citation somewhere in the magical > > world of cyberspace doesn't mean that a statement is untrue. I have > > also talked to some fleet maintainers who found that in the early > > years of the Modular they need to keep a strangely large supply of > > important parts on hand compared to the previous Ford engines and > > compared to GM and Chrysler engines. > Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. So of course you conclude everyone's lying whose experience differs from your own experience with a couple cars. >>>Just because there isn't a handy citation somewhere in the magical >>>world of cyberspace doesn't mean that a statement is untrue. I have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So of course you conclude everyone's lying whose experience differs from > your own experience with a couple cars. What is wrong with you? I didn't accuse you of lying. I simply asked you for some verifiable source of information. Instead of supplying one or saying you couldn't, you behaved rudely. Gee, that's a recipe for trust. I don't know what your problem is. I hope you figure out why you're such an angry man and deal with it. Cheers, > >>>Just because there isn't a handy citation somewhere in the magical > >>>world of cyberspace doesn't mean that a statement is untrue. I have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What is wrong with you? I dislike your attitude. Since the feeling is apparently mutual, I suggest you quit reading my posts, since they seem to bother you so. >>>>>Just because there isn't a handy citation somewhere in the magical >>>>>world of cyberspace doesn't mean that a statement is untrue. I have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I dislike your attitude. Since the feeling is apparently mutual, I suggest > you quit reading my posts, since they seem to bother you so. The application of attitude has been rather once sided here. You might want to go back and read things again. I don't know what I've done to offend you, but your behaviour has been really out of line. Cheers, > Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. Perhaps you can > convince your "fleet maintainer" to post some thoughts about their > experiences.... > > Cheers, My firsthand experience is that all Chrysler 318 engines last over 200,000 miles and 50% last over 400,000 miles. Does that mean a fleet should have the same experience? The point is that Modulars, particularly early ones, needed some pretty major component replacements a lot more often than fleet builders were used to seeing. >> Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. Perhaps you >> can convince your "fleet maintainer" to post some thoughts about their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > major component replacements a lot more often than fleet builders were > used to seeing. Cool. Now we're getting somewhere. Do you have any pointers on sources of information that would fill in some of the blanks here? By "early" do you mean 1996/1997/1998/2004? Cheers, >>> Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. Perhaps you >>> can convince your "fleet maintainer" to post some thoughts about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of information that would fill in some of the blanks here? By "early" > do you mean 1996/1997/1998/2004? I'd say go look at the TSBs as Daniel suggested. I haven't talked to a fleet guy about it since before 2000 so I have no current point of contact, nor have I really followed the development closely. I DO know that my employer's 1998 fleet van with a 5.4 drives and responds COMPLETELY differently than 2003 and 2005 rentals I've had with the newer 5.4 engine- how much is due to engine management and how much due to hardware improvements I do not know. I've also picked up and thumbed through a book on building high-performance (ie full race) Ford Modulars in the bookstore one day, and it had a whole litany of things in its "spotters guide" about which year blocks make good starting points and which should be avoided. Basically, it pretty much ignores all the iron blocks and focuses on the aluminum blocks from the Mk VIII, Navigator, and Cobra. The iron block is the one that Dan and I are both talking about, and the one that has really corny features like setting bearing cap alignment by jackscrews rather than machined mating surfaces (ditched by Ford in its own hi-po applications). To be honest, I only picked it up out of sheer surprise that ANYONE has had success building full-race Ford Modulars. And if you want a one-sentence blanket assesment of the Modular compared to the Mopar Hemi and the GM Gen-III, try this: http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_hemi/ Most of the article is a detailed assessment of the Hemi using the LS-6 as a benchmark, but concludes that the LS-6 is "streets ahead" of the Ford Modular, and the Hemi is ahead of the LS-6. > >>> Well, that doesn't jibe with my first hand experience. Perhaps you > >>> can convince your "fleet maintainer" to post some thoughts about [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > as a benchmark, but concludes that the LS-6 is "streets ahead" of the > Ford Modular, and the Hemi is ahead of the LS-6. Good article...It sounds like they did their homework on the new "hemi." As far as the Ford 4.6/5.4, while it may not be a good engine to hop up for street rods, it must be reasonably reliable in fairly hard use, or they wouldn't continue to be used by most police departments and taxi companies in the U.S. > As far as the Ford 4.6/5.4, while it may not be a good engine to hop up > for street rods, it must be reasonably reliable in fairly hard use, or > they wouldn't continue to be used by most police departments and taxi > companies in the U.S. Your assumption is faulty. You're forgetting that there is no alternative to the CV for a large RWD sedan in the North American market. When the Caprice went out of production after '96, an industry sprang up based on nothing but refurbishing police Caprices for further service -- several such companies did very well, as many departments found the CV's durability, handling and/or defogger performance unacceptable. The cops in much of Southeastern Ontario, which is a large market, have been steadily changing over from CVs to Chevrolet Impalas. The cab companies don't buy many CVs any more; they're buying mostly Impalas (though Hyundai Sonatas, of all things, are making inroads). Every time you ask, you get more-or-less the same answer: "Sure, the CV as a whole can last a lot of KMs, but only with a lot of parts replacements; the engines don't last." > > As far as the Ford 4.6/5.4, while it may not be a good engine to hop up > > for street rods, it must be reasonably reliable in fairly hard use, or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can last a lot of KMs, but only with a lot of parts replacements; the > engines don't last." Given that front drive cars would work fine as cop cars, and front drive minivans would work better than Crown Vics as taxis, there is obviously a pro-rear-drive bias among many fleet operators. The fact remains, though, that the 4.6's must not be that terrible, or said fleet operators would "bite the bullet" and start using one of the many front-drive cars and vans that would serve their purposes. If southeastern Ontario dumps salt on roads at anywhere near the rate of nearby places in the U.S., there will be a limited time during which they can use the Caprices which have now been out of production for eight years or so. Maybe they could transplant Chevy or Mopar engines into the Fords if they are that big on rear drive, and if the Ford 4.6's are that bad. > > Your assumption is faulty. You're forgetting that there is no > > alternative to the CV for a large RWD sedan in the North American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > departments found the CV's durability, handling and/or defogger > > performance unacceptable. > > The cops in much of Southeastern Ontario, which is a large market, have > > been steadily changing over from CVs to Chevrolet Impalas. The cab [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > can last a lot of KMs, but only with a lot of parts replacements; the > > engines don't last." > the 4.6's must not be that terrible, or said fleet operators would > "bite the bullet" and start using one of the many front-drive cars and vans [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or Mopar engines into the Fords if they are that big on rear drive, and if > the Ford 4.6's are that bad. Oops, looks like you're having comprehension troubles. Did you not know that the Impala is a FWD vehicle? Were you maybe thinking of the old RWD Impala discontinued two decades ago? Here, have another go: The cops in much of Southeastern Ontario, which is a large market, have been steadily changing over from CVs to Chevrolet Impalas. The cab companies don't buy many CVs any more; they're buying mostly Impalas (though Hyundai Sonatas, of all things, are making inroads). Every time you ask, you get more-or-less the same answer: "Sure, the CV as a whole can last a lot of KMs, but only with a lot of parts replacements; the engines don't last." > The cops in much of Southeastern Ontario, which is a large market, have > been steadily changing over from CVs to Chevrolet Impalas. The cab [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can last a lot of KMs, but only with a lot of parts replacements; the > engines don't last." If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer Reports surveys show it. If you check the '96 to '03 "engine" listings for the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car, Mustang, F150, Navigator, and Expedition which use these engines and compare the results with the Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban, Sierra, and Yukon which use the Chevy V8's, guess what? The Ford engines are more reliable. The Buick Regal, LeSabre and Park Avenue which have used the 3800 V6 engine over the entire '96-'03 model years of the latest CR report had worse results for '96 to '98 than either the Ford or GM V8's. Maybe police departments are buying Impalas with 3800's rather than CV's not because the CV's blow engines, but because the front drive Impalas use less gas and go better in the snow. Just a thought. > If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer > Reports surveys show it. Because Condemner Retards magazine is full of sh.t? > > If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer > > Reports surveys show it. > > Because Condemner Retards magazine is full of sh.t? Their surveys are based on what owners report, and there is no reason Ford owners would be more likely to lie "in favor" of their cars than GM owners and vice versa. > > > If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer > > > Reports surveys show it. > > > > Because Condemner Retards magazine is full of sh.t? > > Their surveys are based on what owners report, ...and I will not have the Condemner Retards rules/drools/does not/does too pissing contest with you. >>>>If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer >>>>Reports surveys show it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ...and I will not have the Condemner Retards rules/drools/does not/does > too pissing contest with you. Why then are you always the first to jump in with a reply any time CR is mentioned? Matt >> ...and I will not have the Condemner Retards rules/drools/does not/does >> too pissing contest with you. > >Why then are you always the first to jump in with a reply any time CR is >mentioned? Once a Daniel, always a Daniel............................! >>>...and I will not have the Condemner Retards rules/drools/does not/does >>>too pissing contest with you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Once a Daniel, always a Daniel............................! That's a fact. It was a rhetorical question. :-) Matt > > > > If the Ford 4.6/5.4 is so bad and "doesn't last," why don't the Consumer > > > > Reports surveys show it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ...and I will not have the Condemner Retards rules/drools/does not/does > too pissing contest with you. I'm done with this thread, but I'll leave it at this. In reagard to CR surveys, there is no reason to believe that Ford owners would under-report problems relative to GM owners, and there is no reason to believe that GM owners would over-report problems relative to Ford owners. Based on CR surveys, the Ford 4.6/5.4 engines are probably more reliable than GM V8's. I've had both, and have had no problems with either, but continue to believe that the Ford engines are good engines. Otherwise, 90% or so of the U.S. taxi companies would not continue to use them. Taxi companies are in business to make money, and if their cars were complete "pieces of sh.t" which frequently had major enginge problems, they would have a hard time making money and would buy different cars from the Crown Vics that most of them now use. >>>As far as the Ford 4.6/5.4, while it may not be a good engine to hop up >>>for street rods, it must be reasonably reliable in fairly hard use, or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Given that front drive cars would work fine as cop cars, They don't. MANY police fleets have tried them, and they do not hold together. They're fine for park police and parking patrol, and some fleets use them that way. But for cruisers, they just don't hack it. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why they don't hold up. My own front-drive vehicle has surpised the he// out of me by accumulating 215,000 miles (93 Eagle Vision TSi 3.5). But its driven pretty mildly and cared for very well compared to a cop car.. and front drive > minivans would work better than Crown Vics as taxis, True, and a lot of the local taxis are minivans as well as Tauruses, Intrepids, and Monte Carlos. FWD seems to endure better in taxi service than in police service. there is obviously a > pro-rear-drive bias among many fleet operators. The fact remains, though, > that the 4.6's must not be that terrible, or said fleet operators would > "bite the bullet" That's true, they are NOT "that terrible." Which is my point- it took over 10 years to get them to be "not that terrible," and they're still not quite where the Windsor engines were when they went out of production. The Modular engine was designed as a light-duty, small, lightweight V8 for FWD applications. It got pushed into heavy-duty truck and RWD vehicle service as a cost-cutting measure (by reducing the different number of engine families that had to be produced). > As far as the Ford 4.6/5.4, while it may not be a good engine to hop up for > street rods, it must be reasonably reliable in fairly hard use, or they > wouldn't continue to be used by most police departments and taxi companies > in the U.S. I think the ONLY reason its popular with police and taxi companies is because it comes in the Crown Vic, not because its particularly rugged itself. Front-drive cars fall apart in police service, and after the Diplomat went away in 89 and the Caprice in the late 90s, the only remaining rear-drive car suitible for police work was the Crown Vic. > > Because I don't care whether you believe me or not. > Translation: You don't have anything to cite. Well, I *could* post the e-mail from the Ford platform engineer I've been conversing with for the last year or so -- he's been through three engines in his Marauder, and is replacing it with an '05 Pontiac GTO before there's a chance for a fourth -- but that would be slimy of me, since I don't have his permission and don't feel like asking for it. I could also tell you the name of the motor pool manager at UM, but here again, I don't have his permission, don't feel like asking for it, and he doesn't need you ringing his phone asking if I'm telling the truth. Hey, here we go: I could send you to Ford TSBs for the last 6 years. You don't need my permission to go look at 'em and read up on intake manifold and cylinder head and oil consumption problems with modular V8s. All you need is a little self-motivation. > Then you'll pardon my disbelief. Naw, not really...I truly don't care what you believe, so why would I pardon it or reject it? > 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 Mitsushitti engines. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993) > and since they quit using Mitsushitti 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. > 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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! 2000+ Taurus does that, but it probably helps with the transmission reliability. >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? Ford spent a lot of time on the Edsel.....................and many other vehicles during their long history, but it really hasn't done much good. As for Chrysler garbage, you really DON'T know much about Chrysler, do you???????????? >Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you >can't say it's the same car. A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it a bit of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town & Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as you are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add). > >Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you > >can't say it's the same car. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles > before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add). I drive Chryslers too, I know what a T&C is. I drove my 1995 Ford Taurus GL 300 000 kms (185 000 miles) before I sold it and I didn't once have any problems with the transmission. I don't know what your point is, but for either make a sample of one is insignificant. I don't know why you are playing down Ford so much, it's not like Chrysler is the idol of car reliability. 500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in common with the versions they replaced. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message