 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / January 2006What is Chrysler thinking?
Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on these vehicles. I am so curious why Chrysler let the same problem continue year after year, disappointed and turned away hundreds/tens of thousands of customers to Japanese made? So many years into making similar type of vehicles like minivan--don't they learn how to do some basic things right? For example, the suspension, rack and pinion, sway bar link.....Those are not super new high tech stuffs and I believe a company specifically making the same thing for 20 years should at least know what to do and what to avoid. Radiator, battery, headlight, captain seats, airbag, heater seats, and transmission, none of the above is brand new idea or invention happened in the past 10 years. I am not talking about jet stream windshield wiper, rear view camera ,hybrid motor or dynamic laser cruise control. If you screw up all of the above, I will still support you by the excuse helping domestic economy. DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. And your ridiculous point is? You have stated commonalities that apply to every auto manufacturer of every product not just autos. Get a cup of coffee take a deep breath and enjoy it beats the alternative. Coasty > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. Your post is idiotic. I have extremely good results with chrysler mini vans except for 1 and that had the mitsushitti (read japanese high tech V6). So your rant is on deaf ears. Larry > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. Calling someone idiot in the NG does not make you look smart, it is always the other way. Are you one of those "deaf" ? > Your post is idiotic. I have extremely good results with chrysler mini > vans except for 1 and that had the mitsushitti (read japanese high tech > V6). So your rant is on deaf ears. > Larry I guess the Detroit big 3 are so good that they keep on losing market share everyday unless they make a wacky looking car like the 300 that happens to catch on. > Calling someone idiot in the NG does not make you look smart, it is always > the other way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> V6). So your rant is on deaf ears. >> Larry > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. Maybe you would have better luck with a Kia????!?  Signaturehttp://www.hostmybb.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=rftg B-N-Ps, no B no Ps,no spam, trades,post,chat come join! or hyundia were u have to replace the timing belt at 60 k and it is not a freewheelin" engine and if the belt breakes is not covered under it's 100k warranty i have done 2 in the last 3 weeks > > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of > troubles on [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > B-N-Ps, no B no Ps,no spam, trades,post,chat > come join! And your ridiculous point is? You have stated commonalities that apply to every auto manufacturer of every product not just autos. Get a cup of coffee take a deep breath and enjoy it beats the alternative. Coasty > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. Your attitude proved the typical stupidity, same as Chrysler. > And your ridiculous point is? You have stated commonalities that apply to > every auto manufacturer of every product not just autos. Get a cup of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after >> I was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. TROLL! Coasty > Your attitude proved the typical stupidity, same as Chrysler. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after >>> I was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. There are tons of satisfied Chrysler minivan owners on the road. But I agree that Chrysler should improve bread and butter components like alternators, speed sensors and the like so they last as long as Toyota and Honda parts. Stupid failures ruin the reputation of otherwise good vehicles. > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. > There are tons of satisfied Chrysler minivan owners on the road. But I > agree that Chrysler should improve bread and butter components like > alternators, speed sensors and the like so they last as long as Toyota and > Honda parts. Stupid failures ruin the reputation of otherwise good > vehicles. The original alternator on my 96 Grand Voyager had 178,000 miles on it when the van was totaled last week. How long do you think one should last to be considered good? I thought 10 years and 178K was pretty good. Matt You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles because of a lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless times. That kind of crap makes people look at imports. >> There are tons of satisfied Chrysler minivan owners on the road. But I >> agree that Chrysler should improve bread and butter components like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matt > You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles because of a > lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless times. That kind of > crap makes people look at imports. No, you were just unlucky. I've taken several Chryslers past 100K without the sort of trouble you mention. My 89 Acclaim to 143K without any transmission failures, with the original exhaust system, with the original alternator, etc. My current minivan has 61K with no such failures. Matt I and everyone else who had a second 98 or 99 LH car suffered with bad power windows. The motors, regulators and weatherstripping all were bad. Many failed multiple times. I always figure that that is why they went to tiny windows on the 300. >> You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles because of >> a lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless times. That [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Matt >I and everyone else who had a second 98 or 99 LH car suffered with bad >power windows. The motors, regulators and weatherstripping all were bad. >Many failed multiple times. I always figure that that is why they went to >tiny windows on the 300. Really? We put a man on the moon with 1960's technology, and now we have to use tiny windows because we don't have the technology to lift them? I realize you're serious, but you shouldn't be. > >I and everyone else who had a second 98 or 99 LH car suffered with bad > >power windows. The motors, regulators and weatherstripping all were bad. > >Many failed multiple times. I always figure that that is why they went to > >tiny windows on the 300. Strictly for 50s styling, nothing functional. >:) My friends 56 Buick looks very similar in profile, 50s UGLY! >> >I and everyone else who had a second 98 or 99 LH car suffered with bad >> >power windows. The motors, regulators and weatherstripping all were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Strictly for 50s styling, nothing functional. >:) > My friends 56 Buick looks very similar in profile, 50s UGLY! Actually I thought my functional tiny window logic was obvious humor. I guess I was the only one who got my joke. Back to the original topic: All of the US automakers are in trouble due to their obsolete thinking. They signed expensive labor contracts that are pulling them under. Some of these go back to the days of Alfred Sloan at GM in the 1940's. I believe that it costs GM around $1500 per car just for employee medical benefits. Plus they have billions of unfunded pension liability and have been legally bound to fund some of the pensions for their now- bankrupt Adelphi former division. The Wall Street Journal writers last week now estimate that there's a 40% chance of GM going into bankruptcy within 2 years, around a 25% chance for Ford. Daimler Chrysler can not be far behind... However, the merger with Daimler has probably diversified the corporate business base to allow for some saftey margins. Meanwhile the Japanese auto makers are increasing their market share and the Chinese auto industry is about ready to introduce cars into the USA. Their is a vast amount of excess auto assembly capacity around the world. That can only drive profitability down and worsen the situation for USA makers. Other posters on here have cited Chrystler's pressure on suppliers to cut costs. Yet, many of the Japanese companies are using the same parts suppliers. As a matter of fact the domestic content of several Toyota, Nissan and Honda models is higher than some so-called domestic models. Yet, the Japanese makers have still maintained a quality edge over Detroit. How do they do that? By using long range thinking. One poster quoted the known sway bar bushing problems on the Chrysler mini-vans.I've experienced this first hand, having had to replace the busings three times within 70K miles in my 2002 Caravan. Not doing a redesign has cost them more in terms of warranty claims and lost customer faith than the redesign would have cost. It's that type of reluctance to rectify problems that is costing Detroit market share. They are penny wise and pound foolish, to use an old quote. I'm not optimistic that the U.S. makers will survive in their present form. Their only hope is to follow the airline industry: declare bankruptcy, void past labor contracts and reorganize without their current debt. Of course, there will then be political hell to pay... Doug > ...Other posters on here have cited Chrystler's pressure on suppliers to > cut costs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Detroit. How do they do that? > By using long range thinking. Different business culture apparently. They must not have MBA degrees in Japan, or if they do, the philosophy taught is 180° different - i.e., long term vs. short term gains. Any idiot could run a company (for a while, or for a long time if carried/subsidized by an outside money source - I've seen that done too) for short term gains (i.e., "We can make this part cheaper" and "What the customer doesn't know at the time of initial purchase won't hurt them"). > ...Not doing a redesign has cost them more in terms of warranty claims > and lost customer faith than the redesign would have cost. It's that > type of reluctance to rectify problems that is costing Detroit market > share. They are penny wise and pound foolish, to use an old quote. MBA's at work - doing what they do best. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') I remember when GM first signed the layoff contracts decades ago where employees get 90% of their salaries for being laid off. I was thinking at the time that the smartest thing someone on the assembly line could do would be to put together lousy cars so no one would buy them resulting in his layoff. >> ...Other posters on here have cited Chrystler's pressure on suppliers to >> cut costs. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >> You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles because >> of a lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless times. >> That kind of crap makes people look at imports. > > No, you were just unlucky. I've taken several Chryslers past 100K > without the sort of trouble you mention. My 89 Acclaim to 143K without any transmission failures, with the original exhaust system, with the > original alternator, etc. I only wish my '94 Acclaim had gone so long without the head gasket having a catastrophic blow out at 58k miles (as did our '95 and '97 Neons with 71k & 83k miles respectively). The head gaskets on most of the ChryCo 4 cylinders sucked ! >>> You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles >>> because of a lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Neons with 71k & 83k miles respectively). > The head gaskets on most of the ChryCo 4 cylinders sucked ! My 2.5L was rock solid until the day my wife totaled it. The only repair of any significance that it required was replacement of a cracked flex plate. I heard of the early Neons having HG problems, but never heard of that with the 2.5L. You are just rough on vehicles I guess! Matt >>>> You were lucky. My 300M was stuck in second gear at 45k miles >>>> because of a lousy sensor. Power windows have been fixed countless [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Matt Actually, I've been driving ChryCo cars & trucks for almost 40 years (bought over 2 dozen of them new including 2 Road Runners & a Hemi GTX ). I'm retired now & restore old MoPar muscle cars as a hobby. I'm anything but rough on my vehicles, in fact I take great care of them. But it's a fact that ChryCo 4 cylinder engines were rough on head gaskets. Almost every Neon made (til the mid '99 models) puked their head gaskets. This went on til the use of the MLS gasket. Also, I worked at the telephone company and my best buddy was a fleet mechanic there. He used to change head gaskets like peanuts and popcorn thru the years on the old Omnis and Shadows with the 2.2's and Spirits with the 2.5's. Like I said, it seems as though the MLS gasket resolved the problem for the last half dozen years, but before that ...... ouch ! > Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on > these vehicles. I do, I own two. But tons of troubles? I don't think so. Both my vans were bought used and with the exception of the transmission, any "troubles" they had were pretty clearly caused by the previous owners neglect. And the transmission in the late 80's early 90's vans that used the electronic 4 speed was a known common failure point and I knew that before buying either of them. > So many years into making similar type of vehicles like minivan--don't they > learn how to do some basic things right? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and transmission, none of the above is brand new idea or invention happened > in the past 10 years. Your lumping the transmission in there and that's quite wrong, the transmission is ten times more complex than any radiator, battery, headlight, seat, heater, or airbag. And as for heated seats, that's a gimmick - wear a coat for God's sake. In any case heated seats are pointless unless you have a remote starter in the car and you start it 10 minutes before going out of the house to it. And as for the other stuff, well here is the problem, and it's a problem that all the automakers have. Simply put, new car buyers are very price sensitive and the automakers are under a lot of pressure to keep their products cheap. That translates to pressure on the suppliers of these components. So what happens is for year after year the suppliers don't get a cent more for whatever assembly they were making the year before, yet their raw materials costs go up, so they have to keep cost-cutting. And people are very inventive about finding ways of making something cheaper. Sometimes that works OK but other times it doesen't. If the average new car purchaser wanted to buy a car that was made the same way as it was made 20 years ago, with the same parts, (except for updated versions of parts that had proved out to be bad) then it is likely that new vehicles could last 500K miles, barring accident. And it is also likely they would be even cheaper since the automakers could fire an entire useless 3/4 of the "automotive stylists" and marketing people that work for them, yet who don't contribute a single thing to the actual manufacture of the vehicle, everything they do is contributions to selling the vehicle. There have been vehicles in the past (like the Volkswagen Beetle) where this has been the case and the later versions of those vehicles have developed phenominal reputations for durability. But, the average new car purchaser today doesen't want this, they want a car that looks totally different than last year's model so they can drive over to impress their friends with it. The average new car purchaser views buying a car as making a personal statement about themselves, or some other emotional claptrap. That is what sells cars, and because of that, the automakers have to keep changing things around. > DC--you suck, you never learned and you will never get my business after I > was fooled twice in ten years. Same compliment to Ford here. Youll be giving the same compliment to the imports once you have owned a couple of those for a number of years. Ted > ...So what happens is for year after year the suppliers don't get a cent more > for whatever assembly they were making the year before,... Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay for the part - at least that's the way it was when I was in the biz 5 years ago. > ...yet their raw > materials > costs go up,... ...and health care costs, and the customer adds cover-their-butt no value added so-called quality reporting requirements to the supplier's line - people have to be hired to implement those, yet the price paid is reduced. > ...so they have to keep cost-cutting. And people are very > inventive > about finding ways of making something cheaper... Yes - generally the only solution (other than going out of business) is to fake the quality checks (Firestone - Ford), move the production line to Mexico and not tell Ford (violates all kinds of rules), etc., etc, etc. > ...Sometimes that works OK but > other times it doesen't... Usually not, but - hey - they're "saving money" - at least in the MBA's projections. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each > supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay for > the part - at least that's the way it was when I was in the biz 5 years > ago. That 5% reduction was each and every year with no basis for the reduction - up to the supplier to find the "fat" in the process (or simply increase their loss on the part an additional 5%). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each >> supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reduction - up to the supplier to find the "fat" in the process (or > simply increase their loss on the part an additional 5%). Or reduce the durability of the part... For all of Ford's hype about quality, it is obviously they never read any of Deming's or Crosby's writing. Matt >>> Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each >>> supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For all of Ford's hype about quality, it is obviously they never read > any of Deming's or Crosby's writing. Funny you mention Demming and Crosby - they are anathema in the U.S. auto industry today. They are now considered impractical relics that the industry outgrew long ago. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>> Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each >>>> supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > auto industry today. They are now considered impractical relics that > the industry outgrew long ago. It does seem that way. And it is Deming, with one "m". You need better quality assurance! :-) Matt >> Funny you mention Demming and Crosby - they are anathema in the U.S. >> auto industry today. They are now considered impractical relics that >> the industry outgrew long ago. > > It does seem that way. And it is Deming, with one "m". You need better > quality assurance! :-) :) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') In many respects my 99 300M was far better assembled than my 2001 Avalon. Unfortunately, if you consider things breaking, nothing broke during my 5 years of ownership of the Avalon, but the 300M windows probably broke 14 times if you count each window repair once. One of the AT sensors went. One day it refused to start and had to be towed from my garage. Never happened again but we will never know why. As a whole we liked the 300M much more than the Avalon but if we did not have a service agreement to pay for those window fixes, we would probably feel differently. >>>> Actually GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon force cost reductions on each >>>> supplied part - Ford takes an additional 5% of of the price they pay [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') >> Whoever owns a Chrysler/Dodge minivan knows there are tons of troubles on >> these vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > common > failure point and I knew that before buying either of them. Yeah, I never had any trouble with mine either. I'm at that age where I know a lot of people who own them, and generally they give good service. I just hauled one off to the crusher with 180,000 miles on it. It belonged to a neighbor. It was leaking oil, and he let it get low repeatedly, and one day it finally lost oil pressure long enough to throw a rod. It had that 1989 4-speed automatic in it, with 180,000 miles, and the thing had never been apart! I was impressed. I hated to junk it, but I sure wasn't going to bother fixing it, and I didn't think anybody else would either. So, I think the OP is just full of bunk. I seem to recall that 1990 was the first model year that incorporated the 4-speed electronic "ultra-drive" transmission. I might be wrong, but this could explain how the 1989 that you hauled off to the junk yard still had its original transmission. We had a 1990 Grand Caravan that only made it to 6 years/48K before it needed the transmission replaced. Thankfully, they had a 7-year/70K mile warranty so we only paid $100 for the replacement. We own three other post-1996 Chryslers that all have the 4-speed and with regular maintenance (30K fluid and filter changes with ATF+4), they seem to be holding up very well, although none of the vehicles have broken 100K yet. Two have had output speed sensors replaced, but otherwise no problems with the transmissions. Bob > I just hauled one off to the crusher with 180,000 miles on it. It belonged > to a neighbor. It was leaking oil, and he let it get low repeatedly, and one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, I think the OP is just full of bunk. > We had a 1990 Grand Caravan that only made it to 6 years/48K before it > needed the transmission replaced. Thankfully, they had a 7-year/70K mile [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bob And suppose you were on a vacation trip in the middle of nowhere on a weekend when those output sensors trashed out. You would not have been very happy. Those are the kind of issues CHrysler needs to address. >>We had a 1990 Grand Caravan that only made it to 6 years/48K before it >>needed the transmission replaced. Thankfully, they had a 7-year/70K mile [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > weekend when those output sensors trashed out. You would not have been very > happy. Those are the kind of issues CHrysler needs to address. That is exactly what happened to us in our 2001 T&C on Hwy 50 in NV (dubbed the loneliest hwy in America) 200 miles from the nearest dealer. Locked up in 2nd gear. WVK > We own three other > >>post-1996 Chryslers that all have the 4-speed and with regular maintenance > >>(30K fluid and filter changes with ATF+4), they seem to be holding up very > >>well, My '95 Concords transmission is doing very well. No maintenance but fluid changes. I just had it serviced, got the full job a flush and pan drop. The dealer advised me that the pan drop only changes about 1/3 of the fluid. For an older car like mine they recommended a flush at half the normal service interval, with a pan drop about every third flush. As before previous services it was occasionally shifting a bit rough. After the service shifting is a smooth as new again. > I seem to recall that 1990 was the first model year that incorporated the > 4-speed electronic "ultra-drive" transmission. Nope, 1989. Available with all the corporate V6s (3.0 Mitsu, 3.3 and 3.8 Chrysler). Not available with the 4-speeds. > could explain how the 1989 that you hauled off to the junk yard still > had its original transmission. The 3-speed automatic was available with the 3.0. But, I do know someone with a '92 Spirit 3.0 with over 200,000 miles on the *original* unrebuilt A604. > Your lumping the transmission in there and that's quite wrong, the > transmission is > ten times more complex than any radiator, battery, headlight, seat, heater, > or Well although I have a '95 Concord I must put in a vote for the terrible reliability of it's air conditioner. The first auto air conditioner I've had and it had one part failure after another. The evaporator has been replaced three times. Several other parts have been replaced once. However I'll vote for Chrysler extending the air conditioner warranty to 7 yrs and fixing it up, multiple times. I'm now about 4 yrs after the last fix and it's still working. Fingers crossed. The rest of the car is rock solid, even the complex transmission. The engine, which is also used in the Van, is the best I've every had. In fact the excellent drive train is what held me back from dumping it. When the air conditioner fails again, pressure will be on me to trade. I was stung once before with the very poor 4 spd transmission in my 1981 2.2L Horizion. After 2 yrs of continual maintenance, done by the one mechanic locally who understood it, Chrysler replaced it's guts completely and it was finally well. If only I had realized this was the first yr of Chrysler's new 4 sp. My next vehicle will be based on a several years of good maintenance reports on the components used. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.