Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Do Chrysler Minivans last a long time?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
needin4mation@gmail.com - 11 Nov 2005 02:30 GMT
I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
however, I see them all over the place for sale 100K+ miles $5,000 or
more.  Is that just an old stigma about American cars?  What kind of
work might I expect to have to put into a minivan with 130k miles on
it?

Thanks.
Daniel J. Stern - 11 Nov 2005 05:11 GMT
> I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.

Well...that depends on your definition of "long ago". American cars of the
'60s and early '70s were often good for several hundred thousand miles.
They'd never reach it intact if you lived in a salty area, but then
*nobody's* cars, except perhaps for certain Volvos, were particularly
salt-resistant back then. Mid-'70s to mid-'80s US cars were, as a lot and
with a few exceptions, pretty grim.

> Now, however, I see them all over the place for sale 100K+ miles $5,000
> or more.  Is that just an old stigma about American cars?  What kind of
> work might I expect to have to put into a minivan with 130k miles on it?

Totally depends on the year, engine, transmission, equipment, and prior
maintenance. Up here (salty Toronto) there are *scads* of first-generation
'84-'90 Chrysler minivans still in daily use in good condition.

DS
Ken Pisichko - 13 Nov 2005 05:56 GMT
> Totally depends on the year, engine, transmission, equipment, and prior
> maintenance. Up here (salty Toronto) there are *scads* of first-generation
> '84-'90 Chrysler minivans still in daily use in good condition.
>
> DS

Yes Dan, they work fine. My 83.5 Voyager is still running fine. I just have to
get someone to solder a fusible link for me before I get my beast going again.
(I found out why the link melted by the way - and corrected the problem).

At one stage I had to replace the exhaust system - and I thought they
originally had a stainless steel exhaust system in them. Oh well, mine runs
and runs... even though it is one of the original carburetted ones...

Mine runs really well in the winter on Mohawk "gasohol (10% ethanol). I am not
worried one bit on efficiency or mpg at -35C - just as long as it starts and
runs well at those temps. In the warmer weather (like right now near 0C) I
just use regular Co-op gasoline (at 88.9 cents/liter - what a bargain as
compared to the $1.39/l this past August in Kapuskasing).

Ken
Winnipeg
philthy - 13 Nov 2005 14:48 GMT
taking care of them is a major  help to long term usage and trouble free miles

> > I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> > ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> DS
Joe - 11 Nov 2005 08:36 GMT
It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little better than
others in basic reliability. The 3.3 is particulary good. The 3.8 is a
derivative, so I guess it's okay too. If you're going to drive a car 300,000
miles, usually the one big ticket item that won't make it is the
transmission. You'll have to have that overhauled some time. As for what it
costs, as somebody at a transmission shop about a particular car. Don't
bother asking here. All the other mainteance items are small stuff that you
usually pay a few bucks here and there as you go. You might get charged
$1000 for the small stuff, but that doesn't mean it's not small stuff. How
you pay depends more on your looks and where you get your car fixed.

>I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Daniel J. Stern - 11 Nov 2005 19:06 GMT
> It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
> reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little better than
> others in basic reliability. The 3.3 is particulary good. The 3.8 is a
> derivative, so I guess it's okay too.

The 3.8 is not a "derivative", it is the larger of the two engines (3.3,
3.8) in that family. With the sole exception of the difference in piston
displacement, these two engines are identical.
Bill Putney - 11 Nov 2005 22:43 GMT
>> It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
>> reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 3.8) in that family. With the sole exception of the difference in piston
> displacement, these two engines are identical.

That's would not be a derivative?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Bill Putney - 11 Nov 2005 22:46 GMT
> That's would not be a derivative?

"That..."

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Daniel J. Stern - 12 Nov 2005 04:22 GMT
>>> It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
>>> reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That would not be a derivative?

That would not be a derivative.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 12 Nov 2005 05:43 GMT
> >>> It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
> >>> reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That would not be a derivative.

You guys are so cute, having your discussions about vocabulary words
when a guy asks a simple question about minivans.
Bill Putney - 12 Nov 2005 15:36 GMT
>>>>>It's very hard to wear the engine out on anything these days, with
>>>>>reasonable maintenance. Some of the minivan engines are a little
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You guys are so cute, having your discussions about vocabulary words
> when a guy asks a simple question about minivans.

OK - we'll give him his money back.  :)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
me! - 15 Nov 2005 02:17 GMT
Come on Putt.. you're an engineer.. I know you took lots and lots of
math..you certainly got to derivatives !! LOL  This group is such fun!
Bill Putney - 15 Nov 2005 11:14 GMT
> Come on Putt.. you're an engineer.. I know you took lots and lots of
> math..you certainly got to derivatives !! LOL  This group is such fun!

Good one!  :)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
jdoe - 11 Nov 2005 11:59 GMT
They can and do providing they are reasonably well taken care of and
especially if you have a 3.3 or 3.8 engine. The transmissions can last a
long while. THe one in my 99 lasted until 150k (miles) and only grenaded
because of the cheap POS Chinese filter I installed in it which
disintegrated and caused the oil pump to grenade. (It still got me and the
family home safely 150miles even though the bottom of the pan looked like a
scrap metal yard FWIW so I have to give it it's due). How long would it have
gone had that filter not been installed is anybody's guess. The 93 T&C I had
before my 2003 went in excesss of 200k and fell vixtim to salt and a rusted
frame. The aforementioned 99 has over 175k on it now and runs like a swiss
watch. Salt is taking a slight toll on this one though too as I will have to
have the strut tower repaired and a rust area on the rear driver side fender
opening fixed. The 92 Grand Voyager we had b4 the 99 T&C was only replaced
because it gave it's life to protect my wife from a 16 yo girl in a Mustang.
Totalled but the wife aled away well...limped away. It was a VERY bad wreck.
Kid in Stang taken to hospital. It had close to 180k VERY reliable miles on
it when it went to Mopar heaven.
Larry
>I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Frank Boettcher - 11 Nov 2005 17:34 GMT
>I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
>ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Thanks.

I've had three.  87, 93, 99 (still have this one).

87 not worth talking about engine/transmission no longer supplied,
however it was a good vehicle that I kept to 130K miles with minimal
non routine-maintenance.

93 also kept to about 130k miles, however went through three
transmissions.  Chrysler coverd 2.5 of them. (7/70 Years).  In all
other aspects minimal non-routine maintenance.

99 Currently approaching 130K and it has been very good with almost no
non-routine maintenance.

My view.  The engines are great, durable and reliable. The
transmissions have a clouded history, however, I'm told improvements
in later models have minimized problems.  All other systems seem to be
very reliable and at the highest trim levels they are without a doubt
the most comfortable and well appointed of the mini vans if that
matters to you.
PC Medic - 11 Nov 2005 17:39 GMT
>I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
> however, I see them all over the place for sale 100K+ miles $5,000 or
> more.  Is that just an old stigma about American cars?  What kind of
> work might I expect to have to put into a minivan with 130k miles on
> it?

My experiences....

85 Caravan  148,000 miles
87 Caravan  241,000+ miles (odometer stopped working year before I sold it)
95 Caravan (current) 161,000 miles

Only major repairs ever needed on the 3 was a new timing chain on the 87'
and a new timing belt on the 95.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 12 Nov 2005 13:48 GMT
They seem to be astonishingly pretty good. Now sometimes you get the
wrong engine and the wrong year, like 1993. And the transmissions with
overdrive seem to be a bit touchy and a mechanic told me, no problem,
he just budgets a new tranny as a maintenance item. But new or rather
rebuilt trannies are 50% more expensive than they used to be, so that's
some money there.

I am 199,000+ miles. If you're talking about recent minivans within the
last couple of years, I don't know about those except some of them have
been reputed to be quite good, from also other manufacturers.

I see a lot of Chrysler Minivans on the road and I think I see a lot
more of them than any other minivans that are old. And quite a few
still look quite nice.
SBlackfoot - 12 Nov 2005 16:11 GMT
> They seem to be astonishingly pretty good. Now sometimes you get the
> wrong engine and the wrong year, like 1993.

Ah crap.

(Hoping you're not referring to the 3.0/3-speed)
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 12 Nov 2005 17:12 GMT
> > They seem to be astonishingly pretty good. Now sometimes you get the
> > wrong engine and the wrong year, like 1993.
>
> Ah crap.
>
> (Hoping you're not referring to the 3.0/3-speed)

The 1993 3.0/3 speed is the one I had that stopped going in reverse.
Drove it another 60,000 or so after that, only going forward.
Ken Weitzel - 12 Nov 2005 17:23 GMT
>>>They seem to be astonishingly pretty good. Now sometimes you get the
>>>wrong engine and the wrong year, like 1993.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The 1993 3.0/3 speed is the one I had that stopped going in reverse.
> Drove it another 60,000 or so after that, only going forward.

Hi...

Gee, another old guy flashback :)

Had a 59 Galaxie 500 that quit reverse.  Back in the days when
dollars were really really tight.

Lot of effort finding stopping places where there was no chance
that you'd have to back up to get out...  but you do what you have
to.

Thanks for triggering the memory :)

Ken
Daniel J. Stern - 12 Nov 2005 18:45 GMT
>>> They seem to be astonishingly pretty good. Now sometimes you get the
>>> wrong engine and the wrong year, like 1993.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The 1993 3.0/3 speed is the one I had that stopped going in reverse.
> Drove it another 60,000 or so after that, only going forward.

OK, but that doesn't mean a 1993 with 3.0/3spd is "the wrong engine and
the wrong year". The 3spd transmission is considerably more dependable and
durable than the 4spd overall; that doesn't mean failures never happen
with the 3spd.
needin4mation@gmail.com - 12 Nov 2005 18:48 GMT
A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
unless it had recently had a new transmission (or two) because he said
the transmission on these vehicles only last about 60,000 miles.
Matt Whiting - 13 Nov 2005 00:37 GMT
> A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
> unless it had recently had a new transmission (or two) because he said
> the transmission on these vehicles only last about 60,000 miles.

The mechanic you know is clueless.  My 96 Grand Voyager has 175,000 on
the original transmission and it has been untouched other than routine
fluid and filter changes.  I have these done at a Chrysler dealer so
they may have also updated the transmission control software, but I
don't know that for sure as it has never been so listed on the bill.

I did have some trouble that began on the last leg of a long trip I took
this weekend that may possibly be transmission related, but I'm not sure
yet.  Look for a post from me shortly with the symptoms.  However, even
if my transmission dies tomorrow, it certainly proves wrong the
assertion of your mechanic acquaintance.

Matt
needin4mation@gmail.com - 13 Nov 2005 01:48 GMT
Consumer Reports says that the Chrysler is one of the worst bets for a
used car purchase.  Whether it is the transmission or not, I do not
know.  My personal thought is that it is based upon volume.  There are
bound to be more problems with the Chrysler minivans reported because
they sell more vans.

I've just never heard anything good about them other than they are
roomy. from "professional" reviews.  All the good I have heard from
them is purely anecdotal....not that that is not valid.
jdoe - 13 Nov 2005 11:33 GMT
Consumer reports isn't worth wiping your a.s with! It makes for fun reading
if you like to be in a Toyota or Honda fan club. Otherwise they aren't worth
sh.t.
Larry
> Consumer Reports says that the Chrysler is one of the worst bets for a
> used car purchase.  Whether it is the transmission or not, I do not
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> roomy. from "professional" reviews.  All the good I have heard from
> them is purely anecdotal....not that that is not valid.
needin4mation@gmail.com - 14 Nov 2005 22:33 GMT
Do they get kickbacks from the foreign auto makers?
Daniel J. Stern - 13 Nov 2005 18:45 GMT
> Consumer Reports says that the Chrysler is one of the worst bets for a
> used car purchase.

Condemner Retards says a lot of hilarious stuff.
Steve - 15 Nov 2005 03:35 GMT
> Consumer Reports says that the Chrysler is one of the worst bets for a
> used car purchase.

Which is reason enough to run out and buy one immediately.
SBlackfoot - 13 Nov 2005 06:10 GMT
> A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
> unless it had recently had a new transmission (or two) because he said
> the transmission on these vehicles only last about 60,000 miles.

I dunno, my '93 Grand Voyager has been amazingly reliable. 3.0L/3-speed,
modded with a wheelchair ramp. My father got it new and it went through a
fuel pump early on, the A/C has crapped out at least twice, a couple of
cat-backs, but really nothing else major had been done to it until I took
possession when my father passed away last winter. Even now the only things
engine-wise have been normal items, ie. plugs (dirt simple with the
aircleaner housing off)/leads/cap/rotor, a pair of thermostats this year,
etc.. 186k kms on it, it doesn't leak a drop and has never been torn into.
No smoke and she starts right up every time (well after the ignition parts
it does, it was LONG overdue). Original accessories and timing belt. The
front end has always kind of sounded dry but it hasn't been a problem in
twelve years now. The tranny fluid and filter have been changed several
times but like the engine, it has never been torn into. That kickdown
linkage likes to bind though, causing rough shifts. <shrug> Overall it has
been a fantastic vehicle.

Just a few weeks ago I pitched the OEM struts. Twelve years isn't too bad...
;)  Now if only I could find a pair of those modified hydraulic shocks for
the rear...
Steve - 13 Nov 2005 14:18 GMT
>>>A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
unless it had recently had a new transmission (or two) because he said
the transmission on these vehicles only last about 60,000 miles. <<<

The mechanic you know is wrong. I know of several, mine included, with
160,000 miles or more and no trouble.

Many, if not most, transmission problems (not just in Chrysler
minivans) are caused by the operator's failure to come to a complete
stop when backing before shifting to a forward gear. They are
transmissions, not brakes.
Matt Whiting - 13 Nov 2005 14:26 GMT
>>>>A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> stop when backing before shifting to a forward gear. They are
> transmissions, not brakes.

Are you sure about this?  I thought the electronically controlled
transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
any appreciable speed.

Matt
Steve - 13 Nov 2005 16:22 GMT
<<<Are you sure about this?  I thought the electronically controlled
transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
any appreciable speed.

Matt <<<

Some may not, but I have 4 electronic transaxles....3 GM and a Chryco.
1996 to 2004 models. They will all shift to drive while going
backwards. Any speed other than zero is appreciable in this instance. I
have taught my wife and children not to do that. Between the 4 we have
446,000 miles with the only trouble being a worn out converter control
valve (at 130,000 miles) in one of the GMs. The Chrysler minivan leads
the way with 166,000 miles.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 13 Nov 2005 17:13 GMT
> <<<Are you sure about this?  I thought the electronically controlled
> transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> valve (at 130,000 miles) in one of the GMs. The Chrysler minivan leads
> the way with 166,000 miles.

That's the truth. After my friend spent thousands trying to get his
tranny fixed, I drove with him once. AWFUL. I told him, you don't shift
into drive while going in reverse. Literally using it as a brake, as
you kind of joked. What a wookie he is.

But there was a problem with the computer software and the
electronically controlled clutch upshifting too slowly and destroying
the torque converter. This was fixed around 1995 announced with a
factory bulletin. But one could rebuild a tranny and it would start to
self-destruct if the place [Cottman] did not update the Tranny Control
Module [TCM] with the latest firmware. This was the famous 37 or 42 mph
shudder. I tried once to discuss this with Cottman, what a funny
conversation. Computer update? The dealer came through like a true
champ. But I could not discuss this with independents or chain other
than the dealer. You would have thought I was making this all up. Very
expensive or expert mechanics knew what I was talking about - but not
the ones around me.
Matt Whiting - 13 Nov 2005 20:47 GMT
> <<<Are you sure about this?  I thought the electronically controlled
> transmissions "knew" better than to shift gears while still moving at
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> valve (at 130,000 miles) in one of the GMs. The Chrysler minivan leads
> the way with 166,000 miles.

I've never tried it for the obvious reason.  It just seems amazing to me
that with all of the software and "intelligence" in these transmissions,
they would use some of it to prevent the transmission from doing
self-destructive things.  I know mine won't downshift if the speed is
such that the redline would be exceeded.  You can shift into low gear at
80 MPH and it won't shift down into 1st gear.  It will shift down, but
only as far as it can without over-revving the engine.

Matt
Steve - 13 Nov 2005 21:23 GMT
<<<I've never tried it for the obvious reason.  It just seems amazing
to me
that with all of the software and "intelligence" in these
transmissions,
they would use some of it to prevent the transmission from doing
self-destructive things.  I know mine won't downshift if the speed is
such that the redline would be exceeded.  You can shift into low gear
at
80 MPH and it won't shift down into 1st gear.  It will shift down, but
only as far as it can without over-revving the engine.

Matt <<<

Most hydraulically controlled transmissions are that way, also. At
least as they came from the factory. Lots of shift "improvement" kits
eliminated this feature. When you're in the business of manufacturing
transmissions, self destruction can be a good thing.
Bill Putney - 13 Nov 2005 22:52 GMT
> <<<I've never tried it for the obvious reason.  It just seems amazing
> to me
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> eliminated this feature. When you're in the business of manufacturing
> transmissions, self destruction can be a good thing.

Good point.  Maybe the criteria for whether to put any given essentially
free (firmware) safeguard in is whether the destruction that would be
caused would be easily provable as to cause (for denial of warranty
coverage purposes).

For example, in the LH cars (and probably most others) the PCM limits
engine RPM to 4000 rpm when the tranny is in park or neutral.  If my
theory is correct, it could be that engine damage due to over-rev'ing in
neutral may be difficult to distinguish (to a point provable in court)
from certain spontaneous damage from other (non-customer initiated)
causes - so that safeguard is put in.  And, on the flip side of that
scenario, that damge to a drivetrain from a tranny being thrown into
reverse while traveling forward at speed *is* easily provable - so that
safeguard is left out.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Daniel J. Stern - 13 Nov 2005 22:21 GMT
> I thought the electronically controlled transmissions "knew" better than
> to shift gears while still moving at any appreciable speed. I've never
> tried it for the obvious reason.  It just seems amazing to me that with
> all of the software and "intelligence" in these transmissions, they
> would use some of it to prevent the transmission from doing
> self-destructive things.

The gating and/or shift stick pushbutton is regarded as sufficient
safeguard against inadvertent shifting between a forward range and
reverse. One cannot always save the operator from himself without
compromising the utility of the machine.

It is worth noting that through 1965, the Chrysler automatic transmissions
contained a reverse safety valve which, if the transmission were shifted
into Reverse while travelling more than about 3mph forward, would place
the trans into Neutral. It remained in Neutral until actually shifted into
Neutral and then into a gear. This was a wise inclusion on the
pushbutton-shifted Torqueflites, and was carried over through 1965
(lever-shift Torqueflites using the same twin-cable shift/park mechanism
as had been used by the pushbutton shifters), but for '66 this feature was
deleted along with the rear pump. No more push starts for
Torqueflite-equipped vehicles, no more safeguard if you shift to reverse
while moving forward.

DS
philthy - 14 Nov 2005 00:31 GMT
really dan could have fooled me when my kid slammed my charger into reverse at
45 and we heard the most allful noise  and then had to get home by tow truc

> > I thought the electronically controlled transmissions "knew" better than
> > to shift gears while still moving at any appreciable speed. I've never
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> DS
Bob Shuman - 14 Nov 2005 01:22 GMT
I had a 1972 Chevy Vega that had the tried and true Turbo Hydromatic 350
transmission.  My girlfriend kicked the floor shifter into reverse while we
were traveling down the freeway at 62 MPH.  I'll never forget how it
screeched ... just as if the brakes had been applied.  The engine died as
well ... I pushed the shifter back to neutral as fast as I could and
restarted the engine. I was shocked when I shifted to Drive and took off
like nothing happened at all.

Bob

> really dan could have fooled me when my kid slammed my charger into reverse at
> 45 and we heard the most allful noise  and then had to get home by tow truc
Steve - 14 Nov 2005 02:03 GMT
Ahhhh the old tried and true "reliable" TH 350. Back when I did tranny
rebuilds for fun and beer money, 8 out of 10 were TH350s. I could turn
one out in about an hour and a half, good as new.
Daniel J. Stern - 14 Nov 2005 02:38 GMT
> Ahhhh the old tried and true "reliable" TH 350. Back when I did tranny
> rebuilds for fun and beer money, 8 out of 10 were TH350s. I could turn
> one out in about an hour and a half, good as new.

H'mm. A TH350 "good as new". Well...I guess, for certain definitions of
"good"! :-)
Joe Pfeiffer - 14 Nov 2005 03:34 GMT
> > Ahhhh the old tried and true "reliable" TH 350. Back when I did
> > tranny rebuilds for fun and beer money, 8 out of 10 were TH350s. I
> > could turn one out in about an hour and a half, good as new.
>
> H'mm. A TH350 "good as new". Well...I guess, for certain definitions
> of "good"! :-)

Oh, any definition of "good" you want to use.  "Good as new" can be an
awfully weak claim. :)
Signature

Joseph 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

Joe - 19 Nov 2005 02:51 GMT
>> Ahhhh the old tried and true "reliable" TH 350. Back when I did tranny
>> rebuilds for fun and beer money, 8 out of 10 were TH350s. I could turn
>> one out in about an hour and a half, good as new.
>
> H'mm. A TH350 "good as new". Well...I guess, for certain definitions of
> "good"! :-)

You have to admit, that post was very clear! Heh.

Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any great
distance. I can offer no anecdotes at all about the superior engineering of
Chrysler, or how I drove one 400,000 miles, or all the fine people at
Kokomo, or wherever they came from. Newer ones, yes.
Daniel J. Stern - 19 Nov 2005 16:55 GMT
> Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any
> great distance. I can offer no anecdotes at all about the superior
> engineering of Chrysler, or how I drove one 400,000 miles, or all the
> fine people at Kokomo, or wherever they came from. Newer ones, yes.

Ummm...so you're saying you think the *newer* Chrysler transmissions are
better than the *older* ones?

Put down the crackpipe, man.
nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca - 20 Nov 2005 04:12 GMT
>> Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any
>> great distance. I can offer no anecdotes at all about the superior
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Put down the crackpipe, man.
Hard to beat an old 727 or 924. The single pump 904 and 707? were not
bad either, but could not be safely flat towed or push started.

The current crop, although smoother shifting, and arguably more
efficient when working properly, do suffer reliability wise.
My '63 Valiant 6 went close to 200,000 miles with no tranny trouble
before I sold it - and I thrashed the living dailights out of that car
with 200+HP. My '69 Dart went well over 200,000 before I sold it - and
had no tranny trouble. I scrambled a diff - but that was pure
stupidity on my part.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 21 Nov 2005 08:27 GMT
> > Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any
> > great distance. I can offer no anecdotes at all about the superior
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Put down the crackpipe, man.

I think a lot of this is due to FWD, though.  They basically had to take the
existing RWD transmissions and fold them in half, and the gears in the
differential
are a lot smaller than the old RWD differentials, that's one result.  The
converters
they made smaller and thinner, the transmission body was shorter so the
gears
are smaller.  And all these trans designs had to be cooked up from scratch
when FWD came along, and they didn't have the years of experience behind
them when designing them.  Just look at the history of changes and internal
design changes in the Ultradrive/A604/41TE, read through the Chrysler manual
and it's change after change after change for no other reason than to
strengthen
internal parts.  Sure there's been firmware changes in the controller but
just as many if not more hard parts redesigned.

The only thing the FWD gave us in terms of reliability was removing the
driveline and u-joints.  But u-joints in a drive line aren't high-failure
items
anyway, and we got CV axle shafts in exchange which are worse in the
reliability game.

Ted
Steve - 21 Nov 2005 16:11 GMT
.

>>H'mm. A TH350 "good as new". Well...I guess, for certain definitions of
>>"good"! :-)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any great
> distance.

Hmm.... Lets see what we've had in the family over the past 40 years or
so transmission-wise:

1966 Satellite (Chrysler A-727)- about 150,000 miles (sold)
1973 Satellite (A-904) First transmission went 200k miles, second 240k
(so far, still going)
1966 Polara (A-727) first transmission went 230,000 miles
1974 Dart (A-904) 160,000 miles (sold)
1978 Horizon (A-whateveritwas) don't ask-, it sucked. 3 trannies in
110,000 miles, including one where the differential section locked up...
briefly... at 60 mph. Convinced me that front-drives suck.
1983 Gran Fury (A-998) 210,000 miles (sold, working fine)
1992 Dakota 5.2 (A-518) 215,000 miles and still going
1993 Vision TSi (42LE) 150,000 miles (leaking front seal) still going on
rebuild at 221,000 miles. Convinced me that maybe not ALL front-drives
suck...

Brands X, Y, Z in the same time:
1968 Ford Ranchero (C4) 190,000 miles (sold, slipping a little)
1974 Mercury Comet (C4) about 160,000 miles (sold, working fine)
1984 Cadillac (TH200R4) 110,000 miles (sold, working fine)

And I left out my '69 Coronet R/T (727) because I have *no* idea what
was done to it before I got it. It does still have the numbers-matching
transmission, but I had to go through it pretty extensively to get rid
of all the "speed tricks" (boogering up, actually) that had been done.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 26 Nov 2005 03:26 GMT
> Me personally, I never heard of any of the old torqueflights going any great
> distance. I can offer no anecdotes at all about the superior engineering of
> Chrysler, or how I drove one 400,000 miles, or all the fine people at
> Kokomo, or wherever they came from. Newer ones, yes.

Depends on what you mean by old. In any case, remember driving a taxi
at night during college. On a long, narrow bridge no less the thing
stopped. Apparently for some unknown reason, Chrysler could not design
a tranny that could run without transmission oil. Can you believe that?

So the tow truck came. Dumped 2 quarts or more of oil into the tranny.
No problem. Taxi ran fine. I expected it to burn up if it had so little
oil it stopped running.

And yes those vehicles probably hit 400,000 miles easily. Never heard
of the tranny being the problem with the slant six. Maybe with the
bigger engines. Even the slant six could run on oil way short. I would
sometimes fill mine up when the knocking got so loud that I could not
ignore it. Imagine trying that with a modern, front-wheel drive engine?
I would be afraid to even be a quart low for a short time let alone
until I heard ominous knocking from the poor, abused engine.

Funny, I would hear this deep thump, thump thump. And slowly the brain
would say to me, time to put some oil into the slant six.
Daniel J. Stern - 26 Nov 2005 04:18 GMT
> And yes those vehicles probably hit 400,000 miles easily. Never heard
> of the tranny being the problem with the slant six. Maybe with the
> bigger engines.

Nope, not with them, either. The guy who said that Chrysler's recent
transmissions are more durable than their old ones is high on glue.
Bob Shuman - 26 Nov 2005 16:01 GMT
> Nope, not with them, either. The guy who said that Chrysler's recent
> transmissions are more durable than their old ones is high on glue.

Dan,

Taken here without the original context describing/dating the term "their
old ones" the above statement is indeed true.  My 1996, 1999, and 2001
4-speed transmissions have all proven more durable than my 1990 4-speed
which went South and required replacement at 48K miles.  To clarify, as I
recall the OP was suggesting the 2005/2006 4-speed electronic automatic
transmissions were more durable than the 3-speed auto transmissions of the
60's and 70's.

Bob
Daniel J. Stern - 26 Nov 2005 18:42 GMT
>> Nope, not with them, either. The guy who said that Chrysler's recent
>> transmissions are more durable than their old ones is high on glue.

> Taken here without the original context describing/dating the term "their
> old ones" the above statement is indeed true.  My 1996, 1999, and 2001
> 4-speed transmissions have all proven more durable than my 1990 4-speed

Sure, but the original guy was comparing the '60s-'70s Torqueflite A904
and A727 to the '90s-'00s FWD units and claiming that the old ones didn't
last as long as the new ones.

Which is complete crap.
Daniel J. Stern - 14 Nov 2005 02:40 GMT
>> through 1965, the Chrysler automatic transmissions contained a reverse
>> safety valve which, if the transmission were shifted into Reverse while
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> vehicles, no more safeguard if you shift to reverse while moving
>> forward.

> really dan could have fooled me when my kid slammed my charger into
> reverse at 45 and we heard the most allful noise and then had to get
> home by tow truc

Read more carefully.

First year for the Charger: 1966.

Last year for the reverse-safety valve in Chrysler Torqueflites: See
above, re-read what I wrote. 1965!
Steve - 15 Nov 2005 03:38 GMT
>>>>A mechanic I know recommended against the (used) Chrysler minivan
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> minivans) are caused by the operator's failure to come to a complete
> stop when backing before shifting to a forward gear.

Now I've heard every possible ridiculous statement about automatic
transmissions....
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 26 Nov 2005 22:39 GMT
> > Many, if not most, transmission problems (not just in Chrysler
> > minivans) are caused by the operator's failure to come to a complete
> > stop when backing before shifting to a forward gear.

> Now I've heard every possible ridiculous statement about automatic
> transmissions....

Uh, can I tell you a real life story based on a sample of one? I've
probably told this before. I was with my buddy when he was complaining
that his newly rebuilt tranny for $2000 was acting up, after only a few
days!

He was literally using Forward as a brake in Reverse. I tried to gently
suggest to him that these trannies are not known for taking that kind
of abuse. They can have enough problems as it is. I think his vehicle
was 1992. I'm pretty sure with his trim line he had the A604 tranny.

I just could not believe that someone could abuse a tranny. We won't
mention flooring the newly rebuilt tranny even :) And the fellow is a
mechanic! [but not a car mechanic but he should know better.]
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 12 Nov 2005 20:17 GMT
> OK, but that doesn't mean a 1993 with 3.0/3spd is "the wrong engine and
> the wrong year". The 3spd transmission is considerably more dependable and
> durable than the 4spd overall; that doesn't mean failures never happen
> with the 3spd.

I've owned 12 Chrysler minivans and had three catastrophic transmission
failures.  Two were overdrive models, and the other was the
aforementioned 3-speed.  

By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.
Bob Shuman - 12 Nov 2005 22:06 GMT
Robbie and or Laura,

What specifically do you like about the 3.0L Mitsubishi engine?  I ask since
I own a 1991 and although it is in a Mitsu 3000GT, it is basically the same
engine.  Mine is the 222 HP DOHC and has 128K original miles.  The engine
still runs well, but the overhead valves are noisy as can be and it burns
about a quart of oil per 1500 or so miles.  It really needs the heads
removed and a valve job and new valve stem seals, but I am waiting so I can
do a complete rebuild when I have some $$$.

I also do not like the basic maintainability of the 3.0L engine itself.  It
basically requires plugs, a new timing belt and water pump every 60K miles.
OEM NGK double platinum plugs are very expensive and you need to remove the
intake manifold to get at them.  The timing belt and water pump
accessibility  are also a royal PITA.  I'd imagine that my 60K mile "tune
up" would easily cost $1K or so at the dealer if I did not do the work
myself.

Don't get me wrong, it has been a decent engine and develops some good power
above 3,000 or so RPM, but I've owned 3.3L and 3.8L Chrysler vans and
although the rear plugs can be obstinate, the engines were much more durable
and required far less regular maintenance.  The maintenance and repairs were
also far easier to perform as well,  a recent water pump on my 3.8L as a
case in point.  They also developed more torque at lower RPMs which is a
good thing when pulling about a heavy minivan.

  Bob
.

> > OK, but that doesn't mean a 1993 with 3.0/3spd is "the wrong engine and
> > the wrong year". The 3spd transmission is considerably more dependable and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 12 Nov 2005 22:42 GMT
> Robbie and or Laura,
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>    Bob
> .

That's a fair question.

Of all the vans I've owned, one was a Mitsubishi 4 cylinder 1986 model
(didn't like it...)  two were 3.3 liter engines which both leaked oil
like a tanker stuck on a coral reef, and the others were 3.0 engines.
For the past 8 years I've worked as a courier, which is how I've done
the majority of my driving.  I put on about 50 to 60 thousand miles a
year.  4 or 5 of these vans, including the two with larger engines, have
been driven by my wife, who goes about 10 or 15 thousand a year.
Ironically, she always has more mechanical trouble than I do.  I buy
almost every vehicle I own at the auction, some for as little as 50
bucks.  Actually, now that I think of it, four of these vans came from
private sales.  But the point is that they always have over 100,000
miles when I get them, sometimes as much as 190,000, and I don't pay a
lot.  I put them right on the road and go.  I have had the best luck
with the 3.0.  I'll have to admit that I like the water pump on the 3.3
engine, but other than that the two 3.3s I've had seemed like tired,
greasy, noisy contraptions compared to the 3.0.  Both of them had noisy
valves, possibly even one stuck.  I have done 3 water pump/timing belt
changes on the 3.0, which really isn't that big of a deal after you've
done it once.  It isn't even that big of a deal to have a belt failure
because the pistons don't hit the valves.

I don't know what you mean about the spark plugs.  I have always changed
spark plugs in the 3.0 by removing the air cleaner only.  The use of a
wobble socket helps in the case of the one under the alternator, but no
major disassembly has ever been required.  And I get great performance
on $2 plugs.

I suppose that it's all subjective.  I don't care what my vehicles look
or sound like.  In fact, I don't wash them because dirt is a theft
deterrent.  So I'm not into having a prestigious vehicle.  I know you
see a lot of minivans sitting at red lights with clouds of smoke wafting
around, but when I go outside on a cold morning and turn the key, they
always start right up and run, even if the valves are sometimes a bit
noisy.  Actually I have a suggestion for that, and your oil consumption
problem.  When you have an old engine that smokes and clatters, throw a
bottle of Smoke-B-Gone in it and it will run as if it has only 90,000
miles instead of 250,000.  I had one 3.0 that I drove to 275,000 miles,
and it burned around a quart per 1,000 miles.  Smoke-B-Gone cut the
consumption down to about a quart every 4,000.
Bob Shuman - 12 Nov 2005 23:21 GMT
Thanks for the reply.  Both the 3.3L and the 3.8L I've owned never dripped
any oil on the garage floor, but for that matter my 1991 3.0L doesn't drip
either, although all 3 have/had some minor leakage since the oil pans
had/have some caked on oil build up.

Some additional comments in line to your reply below...

 Bob

> > Robbie and or Laura,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the majority of my driving.  I put on about 50 to 60 thousand miles a
> year.

That is an enormous amount of driving in a year!

> I'll have to admit that I like the water pump on the 3.3
> engine, but other than that the two 3.3s I've had seemed like tired,
> greasy, noisy contraptions compared to the 3.0.  Both of them had noisy
> valves, possibly even one stuck.

Interesting that your experience is the opposite oif mine.  My 3.8L is very
quiet and my 3.0L sounds like our old 15-year old Kenmore washing machine we
just replaced.

>  I have done 3 water pump/timing belt
> changes on the 3.0, which really isn't that big of a deal after you've
> done it once.

You must have a lot more room in the engine compoartment.  Doing my 3000GT
was exemely difficult and required a special tool as well.

>  It isn't even that big of a deal to have a belt failure
> because the pistons don't hit the valves.

I believe my 222 HP DOHC is an interference design.  Maybe if yours is a
SOHC it may be different?  My owner's and FSM specifically call for timing
belt  changes every 60AK miles as a preventive measure.

> I don't know what you mean about the spark plugs.  I have always changed
> spark plugs in the 3.0 by removing the air cleaner only.

Again, sounds like a different design here.  My intake manifold needs to
come off completely to gain access to threee of my spark plugs.  This
necessitates new EGR and manifold gaskets.  It is not as bad as the timing
belt or water pump, but is a pain nonetheless..

> The use of a
> wobble socket helps in the case of the one under the alternator, but no
> major disassembly has ever been required.  And I get great performance
> on $2 plugs.

Again, sounds very different here as well.  Mitsu News/User groups warn
against using anything other than the high performance NGK plugs, and given
the PITA to get to them I have never used anything but.  By the way, the
local Mitsu dealer charges over $20 a plug for these.  The best price I
found for them on the Internet was $12 each plus shipping.

> I suppose that it's all subjective.  I don't care what my vehicles look
> or sound like.  In fact, I don't wash them because dirt is a theft
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> and it burned around a quart per 1,000 miles.  Smoke-B-Gone cut the
> consumption down to about a quart every 4,000.

Additives are always a possibility for extending life and reducing
consumption, but in my case it is a known design/manufacturing problem with
the early 3.0L valve stems.  I basically need to rebuild the heads but just
would prefer to wait since I did not have the funds when I did the timing
belt and water pump last year at just under 120K.

I do agree with you that the vans are fairly reliable.  The real weak spot
was the 4 speed transmission.  My first, a 1990 needed replacement at 6.5
years and 48K miles (done under Chrysler's 7 year 70K mile warranty which
came with the van new.)  We have just turned 70K miles on our 1999 T&C and
it still pretty much runs like it did when it was brand new.  I change the
transmission fluid and filter every 30K miles  in the hopes that it will
give us another 5-6 years of trouble free performance.  The only real
problem we have had was a cracked flywheel at just under 3 years and 36K
miles (again replaced under the factory warranty) and an output speed sensor
failure.     There have been a few factory recalls (clockspring, seat
heaters come to mind) and the brakes are not as good as they should be (25K
miles average between front pads and rotors have been replaced 2X, but
otherwise it has given us good service and we have been happy with the
vehicle

Bob
.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 13 Nov 2005 05:49 GMT
> Thanks for the reply.  Both the 3.3L and the 3.8L I've owned never dripped
> any oil on the garage floor, but for that matter my 1991 3.0L doesn't drip
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   Bob

Obviously a totally different engine...
Daniel J. Stern - 13 Nov 2005 18:48 GMT
>> I have done 3 water pump/timing belt changes on the 3.0, which really
>> isn't that big of a deal after you've done it once.
>
> You must have a lot more room in the engine compoartment.  Doing my
> 3000GT was exemely difficult and required a special tool as well.

Well, keep in mind the manifolding and head are totally different, and
hinder access to a much greater degree in the 3KGT than in the Chryslers.

> I believe my 222 HP DOHC is an interference design.  Maybe if yours is a
> SOHC it may be different?

Correct.

>> I don't know what you mean about the spark plugs.  I have always changed
>> spark plugs in the 3.0 by removing the air cleaner only.
>
> Again, sounds like a different design here.

Correct.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 13 Nov 2005 13:52 GMT
> Of all the vans I've owned, one was a Mitsubishi 4 cylinder 1986 model
> (didn't like it...)  two were 3.3 liter engines which both leaked oil
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> lot.  I put them right on the road and go.  I have had the best luck
> with the 3.0.  I'll have to admit that I like the water pump on the 3.3

that's good you can still do that. do they let you turn on the engines
in these auctions? do they have "good" or "fair" or just no indications
of the car's conditions? a good auction or private sales and courier
work go together. it's amazing if you expect the vehicle to work and
you need it for work - it just works a lot of times, even all day or
night long work jobs. sounds silly but true dat. now about the
addidtive below:

> noisy.  Actually I have a suggestion for that, and your oil consumption
> problem.  When you have an old engine that smokes and clatters, throw a
> bottle of Smoke-B-Gone in it and it will run as if it has only 90,000
> miles instead of 250,000.  I had one 3.0 that I drove to 275,000 miles,
> and it burned around a quart per 1,000 miles.  Smoke-B-Gone cut the
> consumption down to about a quart every 4,000.

that's really helpful to know. i once put Bardahl's gunk in an
Oldsmobile with a V-8 and I feel it fouled up the catalytic converter
in a short period of time, maybe a coincidence. so i'll keep this in
memory. thanks.
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 13 Nov 2005 16:01 GMT
> > Of all the vans I've owned, one was a Mitsubishi 4 cylinder 1986 model
> > (didn't like it...)  two were 3.3 liter engines which both leaked oil
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> you need it for work - it just works a lot of times, even all day or
> night long work jobs. sounds silly but true dat.

Nice to hear good feedback about my unconventional methods.  Usually
anybody who talks like this on Usenet is just asking to be jumped on by
every professional mechanic reading the group.  But the fact is that
used cars are a disposable commodity.  Get them cheap, drive them until
they quit, throw them away and get another one.  And you're correct that
courier work is custom made to go along with auto auctions.  I can't
understand the guys who make payments and put 100,000 miles on their
vehicles in two years.  That's a very bad plan in my book.

At the auctions here in Kansas City you can start the engines and put
them in gear, but not drive around the lot.  I've found a few vans with
transmissions that were on their way to failure.  You can turn
everything on, run the A/C, etc.  But other than that there are no
guarantees.  You buy it, you're stuck with it.  But I've never bought a
lemon.  My $50 Caravan had a radiator failure on the way home....  But
I've had great luck in general.

> > noisy.  Actually I have a suggestion for that, and your oil consumption
> > problem.  When you have an old engine that smokes and clatters, throw a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> in a short period of time, maybe a coincidence. so i'll keep this in
> memory. thanks.

I would think that anything that cuts the amount of oil going into the
converter would help keep it from fouling, but I could be wrong.  Lucas
also works well, but it costs more.  The other thing is that when the
engine gets a ton of miles on it you can forget about the thin oil
specified in the owner's manual.  I always use SAE 40. It lasts a lot
longer and keeps the parts from smacking together so loudly and
severely.  Whenever I buy an old van that has thin oil and I change it
to SAE 40 I can always tell a big difference.  There's also something
magical about running the vehicle 200 miles every day.  Whenever I start
up my spare van that's been sitting for months, sometimes it will make
so much racket that you would think it's going to throw a rod.  But when
it's on the road every day it settles down into a more normal and
comforting sound.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 13 Nov 2005 17:33 GMT
> Nice to hear good feedback about my unconventional methods.  Usually
> anybody who talks like this on Usenet is just asking to be jumped on by
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> understand the guys who make payments and put 100,000 miles on their
> vehicles in two years.  That's a very bad plan in my book.

Your methods are not unconventional if you know your way around the
vehicles you're interested in. It's working for you. You have the right
attitude, so it works for you. Others might get put off by the
fuzziness of just picking a car out of the blue.

> At the auctions here in Kansas City you can start the engines and put
> them in gear, but not drive around the lot.  I've found a few vans with
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> lemon.  My $50 Caravan had a radiator failure on the way home....  But
> I've had great luck in general.

What's the secret for telling a transmission going south if you can't
drive the vehicle? You just run the tranny through its gears. Wait, I
remember, you press on the brake and use the accelerator and that will
tell you something about the torque converter? It's been so long -
something about the stalling out. If you have any suggestions, I'm all
ears.

> > > noisy.  Actually I have a suggestion for that, and your oil consumption
> > > problem.  When you have an old engine that smokes and clatters, throw a
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> it's on the road every day it settles down into a more normal and
> comforting sound.

SAE 40. Yup. I remember going to a shop and getting racing oil, Kendall
SAE 50, used to bring cars back from the realm of the dead. Little
problem with oil pressure and the idiot light?, use SAE 50 or the 40,
probably easier to find the 40.

I see your point about my using the Bardahl. The stuff was super thick,
took forever to pour out of the bottle. It only worked briefly and
then? It could have been a coincidence. I remember one old gent, had a
cadillac, not a thing wrong with it. Went to Pep Boys, just had to
tinker so got some engine additive or whatever to throw into it. BAD
MOVE. His car never was as good after that. Coincidence? Some of these
things are not good. But I noticed on a Mercedes group that they were
using Smoke-B-Gone, so I am thinking, hmm, two recommendations now.
Lucas? Don't think I've seen that around? Expensive? Anything Lucas
does is expensive [bad pun?].
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 13 Nov 2005 18:34 GMT
> What's the secret for telling a transmission going south if you can't
> drive the vehicle? You just run the tranny through its gears. Wait, I
> remember, you press on the brake and use the accelerator and that will
> tell you something about the torque converter? It's been so long -
> something about the stalling out. If you have any suggestions, I'm all
> ears.

The ones I've seen that were going bad all did the same thing.  When
placed in gear, either forward or reverse, they hesitate before they
start doing anything.  

> SAE 40. Yup. I remember going to a shop and getting racing oil, Kendall
> SAE 50, used to bring cars back from the realm of the dead. Little
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Lucas? Don't think I've seen that around? Expensive? Anything Lucas
> does is expensive [bad pun?].

I never tried anything that is supposed to "clean" your engine.  It
doesn't seem wise to clean crud out of an old engine unless you want to
tear it apart later.  All I want to do is cut down the quart per week
oil habit when I'm driving an oil-burner.  Smoke-B-Gone is cheap and
gooey.  When I use it, I leave it stuck upside down in the oil filler
hole at the end of the day when the engine is hot.

I'm thinking of going to the auction this week to see if I can get a
good deal on something to replace my 89 with the bad transmission.  I
saw a 92 3.3L sell for $450 last week, and it had only 132,000 miles on
it.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 15 Nov 2005 10:14 GMT
> Nice to hear good feedback about my unconventional methods.  Usually
> anybody who talks like this on Usenet is just asking to be jumped on by
> every professional mechanic reading the group.  But the fact is that
> used cars are a disposable commodity.

But, your not buying used cars.  Your buying used UP cars.

> Get them cheap, drive them until
> they quit, throw them away and get another one.

Couple things about this method:

1) It doesen't work for sporty cars or cheapo cars like neons or such,
that have had a long, hard life of being abused by cheapskates.

2) It works best if the car is partly smashed up - lots of people will
total out a vehicle with an immaculately maintained drivetrain that
has, for example, the side caved in.

3) Works OK for the expensive vehicles that have had long, gentle
lives and only within the last few years have come on hard times.
You probably avoid stuff with a trailer hitch on it, for example.

This also works better in certain geographic areas than others.

Ted
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 15 Nov 2005 22:37 GMT
> But, your not buying used cars.  Your buying used UP cars.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Ted

This is not entirely true.  Lots of people throw away things that are
not used up.  I have mentioned here a few times that I put over a
hundred thousand miles on a particular 1990 caravan without experiencing
problems.  I paid $200 for that one.  I was sorry to see it go, because
it still ran great, but I figured it was time to get a new one when the
odometer said 275,000.  Right now I'm driving a 1989 Honda that I paid
$400 for.  New struts, new water temperature sensor, and a new exhaust
pipe, and it runs like new.  Who knows how long a Honda will run....
The nicest one I ever bought was a 1996 Caravan that my wife drove.
That was a really pretty van, and it drove great, too.  When I got my
paperwork from the auction company I found out that it was a donated
vehicle.  I'm sure those folks didn't donate it just because it was a
worn out piece of crap.  I bought it for $600 and sold it for $1400 a
year and a half later.  

As far as I can tell, there are three common circumstances under which
vehicles come to that particular auction.  A lot of them are fleet
vehicles (rental, contractors, or police/municipal) being sold at ten
years of age or 100,000 miles.  Another large portion are donated.  And
the other significant group are sold by dealers who don't want to have
the same old cars on their lot month after month, regardless of whether
there's anything wrong with the vehicle or not.  The dealers get cars by
trading with other dealers, or from trade-ins, which are usually traded
in just because the customer wanted something newer.  Looking around the
lot, I get the impression that only 5% or less are just junk.  I figure
that these are the ones that come from individuals who are tired of
fixing stuff, in other words mostly the donated ones.  Usually there is
one major problem that was the straw that broke the camel's back, such
as a blown radiator or a bad transmission.  You will rarely see a
non-runner with more than one big problem.

I also don't believe that you can assume that drivers of cheap vehicles
don't treat them well.  You could also say that the guy with a lot of
money will buy an expensive car and not care what happens to it.
Neither one is necessarily true.  You can usually tell when you look at
the cars whether they have been well cared for or not.  For instance, I
can always tell when somebody pulled the cap off the radiator and topped
it off with bright green antifreeze, or if they pressure washed under
the hood yesterday, but the rest of the car looks like somebody has been
beating the hell out of it.  These things are obvious.  I couldn't help
but notice that my Honda had a half quart of Mobil 1 oil in the trunk,
with a mark where the bottle had ridden there for lots of miles.  I
figured that was a good thing.  Turns out I guessed right.  The engine
is in great shape and I haven't had to add oil even after driving it
4,000 miles.  On the other end of the spectrum was a Caravan I saw last
summer.  It was full of dog hair, there was spilled soda everywhere,
lots of little doors and handles were broken and held with tape or
rubber bands, and there was a bottle of Dexron next to the driver's
seat.  No, I didn't bid on it.

You think like a mechanic.  Most folks just want a shiny new car, and
they'll get rid of a good used car without even thinking about it
because they keep the same easy payment.  There are tons of good deals
out there.  Sure, sometimes I get stuck with a bad transmission, but
overall I'm doing pretty well.  I always figure that when I pay $300 for
a vehicle I won't be sad if it simply burns to a crisp on the side of
the road next week.  Most of my vehicles last a good long time.  I'm way
ahead of the guy who pays $300 every month.
Daniel J. Stern - 13 Nov 2005 18:45 GMT
> By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.

It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as the
owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.
Steve - 15 Nov 2005 03:41 GMT
>> By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.
>
> It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as
> the owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.

Which begs the question "why bother?" There are plenty of used 3.3s out
there, which are better in every measurable way. The only reason I can
think of would be if you want to buy a much older van, during which time
the 3-speed tranny (available only with the 3.0 or 2.5 4-cylinder) was
much more reliable than the 4-speed behind the 3.3. But if you're
looking at vans made after 94 or so, I'd pass by anyone with a 3.0.
Steam ship boilers should be oil-fired, not van engines :-p
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 16 Nov 2005 00:33 GMT
> >> By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.

> > It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as
> > the owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.

What sort of top-end maintenance would you mean? The valves need
special care? You're not referring to ordinary "tune-up" measures like
plugs, wires, and PCV things?

> Which begs the question "why bother?" There are plenty of used 3.3s out
> there, which are better in every measurable way. The only reason I can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> looking at vans made after 94 or so, I'd pass by anyone with a 3.0.
> Steam ship boilers should be oil-fired, not van engines :-p

I think that 1994 marked the year that the valves were hardened and the
oil burning   problems were eliminated. This is what a parts guy at the
dealer told me. Or something to this effect. I have, so far, touch
wood, found this to be so at 199,300 miles or so.

Does someone have a 1994 or newer 3.0 that does smoke? I recall reading
a work-around that some had developed concerning this in one of the
support groups like allpar.com concerning older 3.0 engines which were
supposedly notorious for this burning of oil.
Daniel J. Stern - 16 Nov 2005 03:17 GMT
>>> It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as
>>> the owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.
>
> What sort of top-end maintenance would you mean?

PCV system is problem-prone, and the rings are overly prone to sticking.

> I think that 1994 marked the year that the valves were hardened

Erm...exhaust valves have been hardened since 1972, in all engines from
all makers. Hardening has absolutely nothing to do with the 3.0's
problems.

> and the
> oil burning   problems were eliminated.

Yeah, and the A604 was "fixed". The oil burning problem was reduced, but
not eliminated, in 1994.

> Does someone have a 1994 or newer 3.0 that does smoke?

I see 'em all the time on the roads around here.

> I recall reading a work-around that some had developed concerning this
> in one of the support groups like allpar.com concerning older 3.0
> engines which were supposedly notorious for this burning of oil.

Er..."supposedly"?

The "workaround" involves putting a band-aid on Mitsubishi's halfassed
engineering by installing snap ring retainers under the valve guides to
keep them from falling down. And new valve stem seals better than the
originals.
treeline12345@yahoo.com - 16 Nov 2005 00:35 GMT
> > By the way, I like the 3.0 engine.
>
> It's an OK engine once its design flaws are addressed, and as long as the
> owner is fastidious about top-end maintenance.

I asked about this in another post but I'll ask here since it will be
specifically just about this issue.

What top-end maintenance did you mean? Something to do with the valves?
Or something to do plugs, wires, PCV valves, distributor, and so on?
Art - 14 Nov 2005 03:22 GMT
I am considering a new minivan to replace my 2001 Avalon.  I test drove the
Honda, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler this weekend.  I have to say that I was
very disappointed by the numb steering feel of the Chrysler minvan.
Considering how well the steering is weighted in the 300M and other
Chryslers I've driven, the minivan was a big disappointment compared to the
other makes.  Will probably go with the Honda which also gets excellent epa
gas ratings.....  similar to that of my 99 300M.

>I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  Now,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Thanks.
needin4mation@gmail.com - 14 Nov 2005 14:06 GMT
I read that the Odyssey is actually larger inside cubic feet wise than
the Chrysler.  At least in used models.  I couldn't believe it.
Matt Whiting - 14 Nov 2005 22:11 GMT
> I read that the Odyssey is actually larger inside cubic feet wise than
> the Chrysler.  At least in used models.  I couldn't believe it.

I believe it.  It looks like a bloated pig on the outside so I sure hope
it is bigger inside!

Matt
needin4mation@gmail.com - 14 Nov 2005 22:40 GMT
I have an opportunity to by a 2001 odyssey for 11,500 at 83,000 miles
or a 99 Chrysler Town & Country with 90,000 for 5900.  That price tag
of $5900 sure is attractive.
Steve - 15 Nov 2005 03:31 GMT
> I don't mean this offensive.  I admit I am ignorant of this.  But long
> ago American cars were not very good beyond 100,000 miles.  
Are you KIDDING? Old American cars run forever- I've got 441,000 miles
on a '73 Plymouth. Japanese dispose-a-cars may have required a lot less
TLC for the first 100k, but I'd NEVER touch a Japanese car with more
than 100k on it- they seem to undergo massive organ failure where
*everything* goes wrong somewhere before 200k miles, but American cars
just keep going if you take care of them.

That said, I don't generally think of ANY minivan as being a good
candidate for a long-life vehicle. Front-wheel drive is basically a
light-duty arrangement, and is generally overstressed in a big vehicle
like that, and drivetrain problems are apt to crop up. The engine may
run forever, but I'd get tired of feeding it CV shafts, struts, steering
racks, transmissions, etc.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 15 Nov 2005 10:18 GMT
> That said, I don't generally think of ANY minivan as being a good
> candidate for a long-life vehicle. Front-wheel drive is basically a
> light-duty arrangement, and is generally overstressed in a big vehicle
> like that, and drivetrain problems are apt to crop up. The engine may
> run forever, but I'd get tired of feeding it CV shafts, struts, steering
> racks, transmissions, etc.

It's a lot easier than trying to shuttle around kids in a small vehicle.
That
is, after all, why most people buy them.

Ted
Steve - 16 Nov 2005 19:22 GMT
>>That said, I don't generally think of ANY minivan as being a good
>>candidate for a long-life vehicle. Front-wheel drive is basically a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Ted

No argument there, but this is part of why SUVs are so popular too.
 
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.