 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / July 2005Anyone thinking of buying Dodge..........check this first
http://www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblems.com/ > http://www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblems.com/ Not you again! Looking at JDPowers or Edmunds the 2004 Dodge Ram 3/4 ton outscores both Ford and Chevy in almost all catagories for reliability. I'm sure if you look you'll find similar websites for any auto manufacture. This is the first time I've posted here.........so I don't know where the "not you again" is coming from. Here's my experience with a Dodge Dakota I bought new in '99. Before the warranty (60,000km) expired: 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. 2. Seals in A/C were replaced. 3. Transmission shift linkage replaced. 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. Dealer told me it would take awhile to get all the "bugs" out. After the warranty had expired: 1. Battery replaced (4 years old) 2. Waterpump 3. Both wheel bearings. 4. y pipe on exhaust. 5. cruise control stopped working 6. Front rear seal on transmission 7.Flimsy Dodge box liner warps when sun shines on it. 8. Transmission pan rusted out. 9. Transfer case leaking fluid. 10. Seat belts won't retract. I've done the recommended maintenace on this lemon since day one. I use this truck to travel to work and have never had it off road. The few times I've used it to go on a trip (never over 1000KM) something major has gone wrong. > This is the first time I've posted here.........so I don't know where > the "not you again" is coming from. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. > Dealer told me it would take awhile to get all the "bugs" out. I bought a 99 Ram new. Here are my problems BEFORE Warranty expired 1. NOTHING AFTER Warranty: 1. Flat Tire > After the warranty had expired: > 1. Battery replaced (4 years old) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > few times I've used it to go on a trip (never over 1000KM) something > major has gone wrong. I bought my 99 RAM new. BEFORE WARRANTY EXPIRED: 1. Steering system return hose rubbed against pulley, disabling power steering (repaired) 2. Left door speaker stopped working, wiring harness replaced 3. Had a couple of recalls, did not act on one (regarding hood latch). AFTER WARRANTY EXPIRED 1. RWAL sensor went bad 2. Had to replace batteries about twice (my fault) I tow a 3,500 lbs boat trailer occasionally. i >> This is the first time I've posted here.........so I don't know where >> the "not you again" is coming from. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> few times I've used it to go on a trip (never over 1000KM) something >> major has gone wrong. >I bought my 99 RAM new. > > AFTER WARRANTY EXPIRED > > 1. RWAL sensor went bad Would a bad RWAL sensor cause the following symptoms: (1) Brake indicator lit on the dash. (2) ABS indicator lit on the dash. (3) Cruise control cuts out occasionally (twice in about 100 miles this morning) (4) Speedometer operates normally. (5) Brakes appear to be operating normally - I haven't had the opportunity to try any panic stops. I checked the ABS fuse (visual) and it doesn't appear to be blown. I don't want to go buy a meter if I don't have to. Thanks, Greg could do any one of those  SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>I bought my 99 RAM new. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks, > Greg Thanks, Max. I guess I'll have to stare at the lights until I get back home in a couple of weeks and hope nothing else goes wrong with it. I'm out of town and don't have time to work on it right now. Greg > could do any one of those > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Thanks, >> Greg > I checked the ABS fuse (visual) and it doesn't appear to be blown. I > don't want to go buy a meter if I don't have to. Swap it with a known good fuse of the same rating. >>I bought my 99 RAM new. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (1) Brake indicator lit on the dash. YES > (2) ABS indicator lit on the dash. YES > (3) Cruise control cuts out occasionally (twice in about 100 miles this > morning) DID NOT HAPPEN TO ME > (4) Speedometer operates normally. Mine was erratic , only operating at high speeds. > (5) Brakes appear to be operating normally - I haven't had the opportunity > to try any panic stops. yes > I checked the ABS fuse (visual) and it doesn't appear to be blown. I don't > want to go buy a meter if I don't have to. I do not see a lot of alternatives to buying a code reader... other that stopping by places like autozone that offer you free code reading (hoping to sell you parts). i > Before the warranty (60,000km) expired: > 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. I'm calling BS here. Paint and body are covered for 12k only. If you got it fixed under warranty, thats a GOOD thing, and commendable action on DC's part. > 2. Seals in A/C were replaced. So? > 3. Transmission shift linkage replaced. More BS. exactly how did it get broken? This is a dealer prep check item, if it broke, YOU broke it. > 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. Finally an issue that is real. And they replaced them under warranty. Sounds like everything went right on this issue. > Dealer told me it would take awhile to get all the "bugs" out. And thats possible, as it is with all mechanical devices. > After the warranty had expired: > 1. Battery replaced (4 years old) Normal wear item at 4 years, so friggin what? > 2. Waterpump So? Its not unheard of at 60k plus. > 3. Both wheel bearings. Both? Which ones? Were they maintained properly? > 4. y pipe on exhaust. I smell abuse of vehicle..... > 5. cruise control stopped working Electronics fail anytime they want. > 6. Front rear seal on transmission ??? what you called it does not exist. Normal seepage is not a leak. How bad was it? > 7.Flimsy Dodge box liner warps when > sun shines on it. So get a real one. Dodge didn't design, nor manufacture, the box liner. Its not a DC issue. > 8. Transmission pan rusted out. BULLSHIT. > 9. Transfer case leaking fluid. Normal seepage or draining on the ground? > 10. Seat belts won't retract. ANd theres no user problems there? > I've done the recommended maintenace on this lemon since day one. I > use this truck to travel to work and have never had it off road. The > few times I've used it to go on a trip (never over 1000KM) something > major has gone wrong. I think you are full of sh.t. Your list screams of someone being too picky while abusing the vehicle. At least one problem couldn't happen. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > This is the first time I've posted here.........so I don't know where > the "not you again" is coming from. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > few times I've used it to go on a trip (never over 1000KM) something > major has gone wrong. > > Before the warranty (60,000km) expired: > > 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. > > I'm calling BS here. Paint and body are covered for 12k only. If you got it > fixed under warranty, thats a GOOD thing, and commendable action on DC's > part. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It still pealed of which is not exactly a sign of quality. > > 2. Seals in A/C were replaced. > > So? Sounds like cheap rubber seals to me. > > 3. Transmission shift linkage replaced. > > More BS. exactly how did it get broken? This is a dealer prep check item, if > it broke, YOU broke it. LOL, now you are the one giving BS. Dealer prep item, LOL!!! That doesn't mean they actually even looked at it and how exactly did he break it? > > 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And thats possible, as it is with all mechanical devices. Really, how many time have you brought your vehicle back to work out these "bugs". Sounds to me like even the dealer saw this particular vehicle as a lemon. > > After the warranty had expired: > > 1. Battery replaced (4 years old) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So? Its not unheard of at 60k plus. That is still a fairly short time for a failure. Sounds like DC trying to save a buck at the customers expense again. > > 3. Both wheel bearings. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I smell abuse of vehicle..... Please explain. > > 5. cruise control stopped working > > Electronics fail anytime they want. LOL, especially when they are made from sub-standard parts. > > 6. Front rear seal on transmission > > ??? what you called it does not exist. Normal seepage is not a leak. How bad > was it? What exactly is normal seepage. I never see so much as a drop under either my wifes Intrepid or my 240SX which is a relic compared to his vehicle. > > 7.Flimsy Dodge box liner warps when > > sun shines on it. > > So get a real one. Dodge didn't design, nor manufacture, the box liner. Its > not a DC issue. BS. They were the ones who installed it for top dollar, they should be responsible for what they sell although this may be a dealer specific screw-up. > > 8. Transmission pan rusted out. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Normal seepage or draining on the ground? What do you call "normal seepage"? > > 10. Seat belts won't retract. > > ANd theres no user problems there? Why is everything he has a user problem? > > I've done the recommended maintenace on this lemon since day one. I > > use this truck to travel to work and have never had it off road. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think you are full of sh.t. Your list screams of someone being too picky > while abusing the vehicle. At least one problem couldn't happen. If you had these many problems with your vehicle, I think that you would develop a similar attitude. With the exception of the POS rear axle and the now pealing paint, my truck has done very well for me. Every company is capable of producing a lemon, hell, that is the definition of Ford SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It still pealed > of which is not exactly a sign of quality. Here we go again, you don't want to address the issue. The issue is DC's customer service, not how the paint peeled. But hey, lets look at this... the paint pealed on a bumper. Now, how is it that the paint got to peeling? Could it be that he HIT something? We don't know, because he doesn't say. Hard to find fault with anyone if the facts aren't presented. But one fact was presented: DC fixed the problem. DC 1, justme 0 >> > 2. Seals in A/C were replaced. >> >> So? > > Sounds like cheap rubber seals to me. They all use the same seals, as refrigerant is kinda picky about what it'll eat through and what it won't. But until the facts are presented, this could be nothing more than a random failure. But DC apparently fixed the problem. DC 2, justme 0 >> > 3. Transmission shift linkage replaced. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't > mean they actually even looked at it and how exactly did he break it? Sorry, it DOES mean they actually looked at it, because part of prepping a new vehicle is looking at the underside for damage caused in transit, including linkage. Then, it must be test driven AT LEAST 10 miles, and I'll bet the linkage worked then. As such, it was broken after being sold. So the owner broke it, and DC replaced it. DC 3, justme 0 >> > 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a > lemon. Actually, in the case of my 2000 Ram, it saw the dealer 11 times for a pull to the right. In my case, the dealer was the problem. On one visit, I told them about the problem, it was put on the service order, and when I picked it up, the problem was still there. Said the service manager, "well, we didn' know about it." "Funny," I said, "YOU friggin typed it in to the service order, so SOMEONE knew about it." As to whether or not this vehicle was a lemon, I'm calling BS on that too. None of the problems were with the drivetrain, and none of the problems were anything that kept the vehicle in the shop a majority of the time it was owned. >> > 2. Waterpump >> >> So? Its not unheard of at 60k plus. > > That is still a fairly short time for a failure. Sounds like DC trying to > save a buck at the customers expense again. Rubbish. In order to prove that, you'd have to prove that the majority of water pumps failed at that interval. As it is, we don't know why it failed, but it did. Its not unheard of, and its no one's particular fault. >> > 4. y pipe on exhaust. >> >> I smell abuse of vehicle..... > > Please explain. A y pipe is very hard to get to rust out due to heat. Further, its pretty tough to hit the ground with it. So if it failed, its probably from some sort of activity with the truck that is above and beyond the normal scope of operation and design. >> > 5. cruise control stopped working >> >> Electronics fail anytime they want. > > LOL, especially when they are made from sub-standard parts. And I'm sure you have proof of this? Yup, thats right, you need PROOF when you make claims like this. >> > 6. Front rear seal on transmission >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either > my wifes Intrepid or my 240SX which is a relic compared to his vehicle. Have you checked the fluids lately? Maybe they're so low they aren't seeping. Or maybe its the dirt that clumped onto the wet spot that keeps it from dripping. I haven't seen a vehicle yet that didn't seep a bit of fluid at the 60-100k stretch. Evidence is the dirt clinging to the drivetrain. >> > 7.Flimsy Dodge box liner warps when >> > sun shines on it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > responsible for what they sell although this may be a dealer specific > screw-up. Bingo. And furthermore, its something you can check on before buying "flimsy" stuff. >> > 10. Seat belts won't retract. >> >> ANd theres no user problems there? > > Why is everything he has a user problem? Because if he didn't use it, it wouldn't fail, it would be brand new. DUH. Walked into that one, didn't ya? Regardless, seatbelt retraction is generally fouled up by one of two things: 1) twisted/tangled belt, 2) foreign matter fouling the webbing of the belt. > If you had these many problems with your vehicle, I think that you would > develop a similar attitude. With the exception of the POS rear axle and > the > now pealing paint, my truck has done very well for me. Every company is > capable of producing a lemon, hell, that is the definition of Ford All of the problems he mentioned are normal, save for the BS about a rusted out trans pan, which even you walked away from. Most of this stuff is just pain in the a.s stuff, and it sucks that it happened, but its NOT a lemon. As to "this many problems", I've had my truck to the dealer over 15 times total for front end issues (shocks, two new steering boxes, track bar, intermediate shaft). I don't think Dodge built a bad truck, I think the dealer kept a shitty service manager. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Before the warranty (60,000km) expired: >> > 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > now pealing paint, my truck has done very well for me. Every company is > capable of producing a lemon, hell, that is the definition of Ford > >> > 1. Paint peeled off front bumper. > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Here we go again, you don't want to address the issue. Actually Maxi, it is you that chooses not to address the issue. Many of the problems should not have happened at all or at least not in the fairly short time frame that they did. It seems that you blame everything on the owner and you don't know the whole story either. Back to that double standard once again, I see. > The issue is DC's customer service, not how the paint peeled. Wrong. It should not have peeled this early in the trucks life. > But hey, lets look at this... > the paint pealed on a bumper. Now, how is it that the paint got to peeling? > Could it be that he HIT something? We don't know, because he doesn't say. I don't think that he would be complaining if the paint pealed due to damage as that would sorta be expected but hell, you know everything, right? The paint is now pealing off of my hood and it was never damaged and washed regularly, is this my fault as well? > Hard to find fault with anyone if the facts aren't presented. But one fact > was presented: DC fixed the problem. DC 1, justme 0 No, the dealer fixed it, DC screwed it up. DC 0, dealer 1 > >> > 2. Seals in A/C were replaced. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They all use the same seals, as refrigerant is kinda picky about what it'll > eat through and what it won't. LOL, complete BS. Things fail for a reason and sub-standard parts and or assembly comes to mind. > But until the facts are presented, this could > be nothing more than a random failure. But DC apparently fixed the problem. > DC 2, justme 0 Random failures are usually caused by reduced quality controls that were corrected by the dealer. DC 0, dealer 2 > >> > 3. Transmission shift linkage replaced. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > new vehicle is looking at the underside for damage caused in transit, > including linkage. Once again, you are talking out of your a.s. When I got my truck, it had a large patch of paint worn thru on the roof where a chain from the car carrier got it and they didn't catch it. I saw it two days after I took delivery when it was parked under my office window and I could see the roof and they washed the truck prior to my picking it up. Now even if they looked at the shift linkage, not all defective parts are obvious. A hairline crack or defective casting can easily look good but be very weak and not every part that is defective fails immediately. If all defective parts were easily detectable and failed immediately, there would be no need for a warranty past the first day of ownership. > Then, it must be test driven AT LEAST 10 miles, and I'll > bet the linkage worked then. You are kidding, right? I could probably get a coat hanger to work for the few times the linkage was used during that "test drive", LOL. > As such, it was broken after being sold. So the > owner broke it, and DC replaced it. DC 3, justme 0 Back to spin once again. While it did break after being sold, that is not the same thing as the owner breaking it. BTW, you still didn't expalin how the owner could have done it other than just trying to make it perform it's function, IOW, it was defective. DC 0, dealer 3 > >> > 4. Front upper ball joints replaced. > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > anything that kept the vehicle in the shop a majority of the time it was > owned. LOL, feel free to hide behind the legal definition of a lemon. Lets just say that the dealer probably knew that this particular vehicle was going to have a lot of problems. > >> > 2. Waterpump > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > water pumps failed at that interval. As it is, we don't know why it failed, > but it did. Its not unheard of, and its no one's particular fault. Not at all. A reduction in quality control will cause a small percentage more to fail prematurely while saving money, pretty much like the sub-standard bearings DC decided to use in the 9 1/4 rear. They don't all fail, but enough do to be noticable. As for fault, if it was just the pump, I would agree but when you add in all of the other problems that this vehicle is also having... > >> > 4. y pipe on exhaust. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sort of activity with the truck that is above and beyond the normal scope of > operation and design. Or it could simply be a sub-standard part not up to what was required of it, pretty much like the shift linkage. Like YOU said, both of these components are hard to abuse so if they failed, it is more likely due to substandard components. DC -1 > >> > 5. cruise control stopped working > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And I'm sure you have proof of this? Yup, thats right, you need PROOF when > you make claims like this. The proof is simple, there is no other valid reason for this type of failure unless you know of some magical way to abuse a CC unit. > >> > 6. Front rear seal on transmission > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from dripping. I haven't seen a vehicle yet that didn't seep a bit of fluid > at the 60-100k stretch. Evidence is the dirt clinging to the drivetrain. Yep, fluid levels are fine. Are you saying that it is normal for a vehicle to leave a puddle of fluid on the ground? Oh, wait a minute, you did say 60-100K. I guess that you are referring to LEAKAGE due to worn seals and even then, you are talking about wetnesss on the components, not puddles on the ground.. > >> > 7.Flimsy Dodge box liner warps when > >> > sun shines on it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bingo. And furthermore, its something you can check on before buying > "flimsy" stuff. That does not relieve them from their responsibility to install quality components (even aftermarket) on an expensive vehicle. DC -2 > >> > 10. Seat belts won't retract. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because if he didn't use it, it wouldn't fail, it would be brand new. DUH. No, it would be unused, not new, and still defective., DUH! > Walked into that one, didn't ya? No, but you sure did. > Regardless, seatbelt retraction is > generally fouled up by one of two things: 1) twisted/tangled belt, 2) > foreign matter fouling the webbing of the belt. Or a substandard mechanism due to quality control cutbacks or cut rate components to save money. The belts in my 89 Nissan still work perfectly and that car has automatic belts, so they move every time the car is used. DC -3 > > If you had these many problems with your vehicle, I think that you would > > develop a similar attitude. With the exception of the POS rear axle and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All of the problems he mentioned are normal, save for the BS about a rusted > out trans pan, which even you walked away from. While they may be normal, this many of them in this short of a period of time is NOT normal and is a clear indication of a slipping level of quality control. As for the pan, I don't know what it is made out of on his vehicle so I cannot make any comment there. Now did he get confused between rust and corrosion. > Most of this stuff is just > pain in the a.s stuff, and it sucks that it happened, but its NOT a lemon. Yes, it is a PITA and completely unacceptable to have so many of them happen to a single expensive vehicle in such a short period of time. > As to "this many problems", I've had my truck to the dealer over 15 times > total for front end issues (shocks, two new steering boxes, track bar, > intermediate shaft). I don't think Dodge built a bad truck, I think the > dealer kept a shitty service manager. Now this sounds like abuse from the customer. I guess I can see why you blame him for the problems with his vehicle. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Actually Maxi, it is you that chooses not to address the issue. Many of > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and you don't know the whole story either. Back to that double standard > once again, I see. No double standard about it. Mechanical things have problems, whether it be in a timely manner or not. The issue is whether or not the manufacturer deals with those problems in a timely and correct manner. According to the OP, the dealer DID address his issues while the truck was under warranty. >> The issue is DC's customer service, not how the paint peeled. > > Wrong. It should not have peeled this early in the trucks life. Correct, BUT, the issue is STILL the service rendered, not the problem. When you build a million of something, there will be problems of some sort within that million. Thus, its not about whether or not there is a problem, but how that problem is addressed. >> Hard to find fault with anyone if the facts aren't presented. But one >> fact >> was presented: DC fixed the problem. DC 1, justme 0 > > No, the dealer fixed it, DC screwed it up. DC 0, dealer 1 The dealer is DC's warranty representative. If the dealer scored on a warranty problem, so did DC. > Random failures are usually caused by reduced quality controls that were > corrected by the dealer. DC 0, dealer 2 Dealer acts as representitive of DC, DC retains lead. >> Sorry, it DOES mean they actually looked at it, because part of prepping >> a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > large patch of paint worn thru on the roof where a chain from the car > carrier got it and they didn't catch it. So did mine. But unless I miss my guess, the roof is on TOP of the truck, and not on the underside. Regardless, both trucks SHOULD have had the roof looked at for paint problems, as it IS part of the dealer prep process. >> As such, it was broken after being sold. So the >> owner broke it, and DC replaced it. DC 3, justme 0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's > function, IOW, it was defective. DC 0, dealer 3 Dealer acts as DC representitive, DC retains score. > LOL, feel free to hide behind the legal definition of a lemon. Lets just > say that the dealer probably knew that this particular vehicle was going > to > have a lot of problems. I assume then, that the dealer had a crystal ball, and looked up this trucks VIN to find that out? How could a dealer KNOW that it would have multiple problems, particularly when the problems are all unrelated, except for owner handling? >> A y pipe is very hard to get to rust out due to heat. Further, its pretty >> tough to hit the ground with it. So if it failed, its probably from some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are hard to abuse so if they failed, it is more likely due to substandard > components. DC -1 Yeah, everything that goes wrong on a vehicle is a substandard part, as far as you are concerned. However, if it were actually true that all parts were substandard, all of these trucks would be falling apart, and thats just not true. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that just ONE of these things you've called "substandard" is in fact, substandard. > The proof is simple, there is no other valid reason for this type of > failure > unless you know of some magical way to abuse a CC unit. LOL, electronic parts fail at any interval, this is why electronic parts bought at a parts store are non returnable. Your proof is lacking. > Yep, fluid levels are fine. Are you saying that it is normal for a > vehicle [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on > the ground.. Yup. Which is why I asked what the OP's definition of leaking was and suggested that it might be normal. > That does not relieve them from their responsibility to install quality > components (even aftermarket) on an expensive vehicle. DC -2 Wrong. They advertise by name those componants, and the standard is "buyer beware." >> > Why is everything he has a user problem? >> >> Because if he didn't use it, it wouldn't fail, it would be brand new. >> DUH. > > No, it would be unused, not new, and still defective., DUH! You are assuming that it was broken when new, and that was never mentioned. Therefore, I made the safe assumption, and figured it had been used. A safe assumption about your common sense would indicate that you didn't use it on this occasion. > Or a substandard mechanism due to quality control cutbacks or cut rate > components to save money. The belts in my 89 Nissan still work perfectly > and that car has automatic belts, so they move every time the car is used. > DC -3 Yet more reasonsing that indicates the belts were somehow fouled, not defective. Your still work, why don't his? >> All of the problems he mentioned are normal, save for the BS about a > rusted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so I cannot make any comment there. Now did he get confused between rust > and corrosion. Rust IS corrosion. However, aluminum will form a surface oxidation that protects the rest of the aluminum. Trans pans will alst far longer than the vehicle panels, so rust, corrosion, whatever you wish to call it, I doubt it "rusted out". > Yes, it is a PITA and completely unacceptable to have so many of them > happen > to a single expensive vehicle in such a short period of time. Which is why it has a warranty, that was admitted to have been honored. > Now this sounds like abuse from the customer. I guess I can see why you > blame him for the problems with his vehicle. LOL, hardly. Funny part is, when I did finally launch the truck 4' into the air, nothing broke. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > > Actually Maxi, it is you that chooses not to address the issue. Many of > > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > deals with those problems in a timely and correct manner. According to the > OP, the dealer DID address his issues while the truck was under warranty. This would only be completely valid if it happened to all vehicles and it simply doesn't. Proven mechanical things have problems when things are not assembled properly, substandard parts are use in their assembly, and / or when they simply wear out and this last reason is directly affected by the first two. > >> The issue is DC's customer service, not how the paint peeled. > > > > Wrong. It should not have peeled this early in the trucks life. > > Correct, BUT, the issue is STILL the service rendered, not the problem. No, it is not. I don't care how many times they are willing to fix it if it shouldn't have happened in the first place. > When you build a million of something, there will be problems of some sort within > that million. Thus, its not about whether or not there is a problem, but how > that problem is addressed. While true, it is also a matter of HOW MANY problems occur with a individual vehicle and over what period of time regardless of how they are addressed. Many of the problems that he experienced simply should not have happened at all within the time frame he gave such as the pealing paint, failed trans linkage, and Y pipe failure which indicate a problem with QC and the parts being used. > >> Hard to find fault with anyone if the facts aren't presented. But one > >> fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The dealer is DC's warranty representative. If the dealer scored on a > warranty problem, so did DC. Yea, but DC also scored a negative for it happening in the first place so their combined score is still ZERO. > > Random failures are usually caused by reduced quality controls that were > > corrected by the dealer. DC 0, dealer 2 > > Dealer acts as representitive of DC, DC retains lead. And still gets a negative for the failure, combined score for DC is still zero. > >> Sorry, it DOES mean they actually looked at it, because part of prepping > >> a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So did mine. But unless I miss my guess, the roof is on TOP of the truck, > and not on the underside. Did they not wash your truck? If they did, then they were probably standing in the bed to wash the roof and could easily see it if they bothered to look.. What makes you think that they pay any more attention to the underside which is even more difficult to look at? > Regardless, both trucks SHOULD have had the roof > looked at for paint problems, as it IS part of the dealer prep process. And that is my point. They should have but didn't, even though the problem was obvious. If they didn't bother to see the obvious, what makes you think that they will notice anything else? Crawling under the truck is no easier than looking at the top of it and I would say that a defective part on the shift linkage is not all that obvious to begin with after all, the linkage had to work to get the truck off of the carrier to begin with. > >> As such, it was broken after being sold. So the > >> owner broke it, and DC replaced it. DC 3, justme 0 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dealer acts as DC representitive, DC retains score. DC also cause of failure with defective parts, score canceled. > > LOL, feel free to hide behind the legal definition of a lemon. Lets just > > say that the dealer probably knew that this particular vehicle was going [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > problems, particularly when the problems are all unrelated, except for owner > handling? Why would the dealer say what he did? It would be better to instill confidence in the buyer, not give warnings. I would suspect that this dealer was getting many of this particular vehicles in for excessive warranty work and figured that this would just be another one and he appeared to be right. > >> A y pipe is very hard to get to rust out due to heat. Further, its pretty > >> tough to hit the ground with it. So if it failed, its probably from some [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yeah, everything that goes wrong on a vehicle is a substandard part, as far > as you are concerned. LOL, not really. But when a particular part is difficult if not impossible to abuse such as a Y pipe, what other cause of pre-mature failure could there be? > However, if it were actually true that all parts were > substandard, all of these trucks would be falling apart, and thats just not > true. LOL, that is where standards and QC come into the picture. You all or nothing mentality really doesn't help you here. I never said that ALL of the parts used were substandard, just an increasing number of them probably due to cost and QC. > BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that just ONE of these things > you've called "substandard" is in fact, substandard. Actually, you need to prove otherwise. I have asked a number of times exactly how the customer could have caused the failures and you have yet to come up with a single reason. Instead, all you say is that sometimes this happens which is complete bullshit. Everything happens for a reason and if you cannot come up with a customer related reason, then it has to be the part or assembly itself which indicates a substandard part. I await you proof otherwise. > > The proof is simple, there is no other valid reason for this type of > > failure > > unless you know of some magical way to abuse a CC unit. > > LOL, electronic parts fail at any interval, this is why electronic parts > bought at a parts store are non returnable. Your proof is lacking. LOL, I used to work in an auto-parts store and an electronic supply that is not why they are not returnable. > > Yep, fluid levels are fine. Are you saying that it is normal for a > > vehicle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Wrong. They advertise by name those componants, and the standard is "buyer > beware." Sorry Max, but that term is used to protect people from low-life salesman and second rate businesses. If you have a reputation to maintain, you simply don't resell junk. I can usually tell the quality of an auto-parts store by the quality of the tools that they sell. Garbage tools usually indicate cheap second rate parts as well. Are you saying by buyer beware that DC and it's dealers are low-life scumbags that people need to be wary of? > >> > Why is everything he has a user problem? > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are assuming that it was broken when new, and that was never mentioned. No, I said that it may be a defective part and even defective parts can work for a little while, they just can't hold up to the daily demands expected from them for any period of time. > Therefore, I made the safe assumption, and figured it had been used. A safe > assumption about your common sense would indicate that you didn't use it on > this occasion. But all it was is an assumption. Not all defective or substandard parts fail on the first use as demonstrated by the shift linkage. > > Or a substandard mechanism due to quality control cutbacks or cut rate > > components to save money. The belts in my 89 Nissan still work perfectly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yet more reasonsing that indicates the belts were somehow fouled, not > defective. Your still work, why don't his? Because mine were built with high quality components to deal with what was expected of them, his possibly were not or they were simply defective. If they are so easily fouled, then they are a substandard part not up to dealing with what is expected of them. I still can't figure out why you go out of your way to make my points for me. > >> All of the problems he mentioned are normal, save for the BS about a > > rusted [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rust IS corrosion. Rust is a SPECIFIC form of corrosion and does not apply to all metals. > However, aluminum will form a surface oxidation that > protects the rest of the aluminum. That is not always true and depends on both the quality and thickness of the metal and the conditions it is exposed too. > Trans pans will alst far longer than the > vehicle panels, so rust, corrosion, whatever you wish to call it, I doubt it > "rusted out". I am not arguing with you on this point. Since I haven't seen it, I have no way to know if it did or didn't but if the pan were too thin in some areas for whatever reason or the material was contaminated, it could fail due to corrosion in a thin or contaminated spot which would once again make it a defective part. Sounds like another possible QC issue too me. > > Yes, it is a PITA and completely unacceptable to have so many of them > > happen > > to a single expensive vehicle in such a short period of time. > > Which is why it has a warranty, that was admitted to have been honored. Warranty or not, the customer still has to deal with the loss of the vehicle while it is being repaired. Did the dealer give him a free loaner car while this one was being repaired over and over again? > > Now this sounds like abuse from the customer. I guess I can see why you > > blame him for the problems with his vehicle. > > LOL, hardly. Funny part is, when I did finally launch the truck 4' into the > air, nothing broke. 4' into the air huh, sounds like abuse to me :-) although that is not the point. The point is that if he were complaining about front end problems like you were, that could be attributed to customer abuse unless it was happening to a large number of vehicles like in the case of the ball joints on this vehicle. Most of his actual problems would be hard to blame on abuse as the parts involved are not easily subjected to abuse which leads to problems with the parts themselves and the high number of failures in a relatively short period of time doesn't say much for the quality of this vehicle. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > Actually Maxi, it is you that chooses not to address the issue. Many of >> > the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >No, it is not. I don't care how many times they are willing to fix it if it >shouldn't have happened in the first place. so, it is expected that there be perfection in all things? whats your excuse then? >> When you build a million of something, there will be problems of some >sort within [quoted text clipped - 275 lines] >relatively short period of time doesn't say much for the quality of this >vehicle. > >No, it is not. I don't care how many times they are willing to fix it if it > >shouldn't have happened in the first place. > > so, it is expected that there be perfection in all things? I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures over a given period of time and this seems to be a bit excessive. Just because they are willing to correct it doesn't make the number of failures over a short period of time acceptable. If your Ram had problems every few months that required it to be back at the dealer for repairs that could take days to complete I believe that you would have a very different attitude. > whats your excuse then? I don't have one and never claimed to be perfect, what about you? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures over > a given period of time and this seems to be a bit excessive. You base DC reliability on 1 vehicle? Too funny. > > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures over > > a given period of time and this seems to be a bit excessive. > > You base DC reliability on 1 vehicle? Too funny. Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault appears to be that of DC, not the customer. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault > appears > to be that of DC, not the customer. How exactly do you figure that? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures > over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > appears > to be that of DC, not the customer. > > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault > > appears > > to be that of DC, not the customer. > > How exactly do you figure that? Vehicle is a POS by the number and frequency of required repairs.. The fact that DC keeps repairing it shows that they know it is not the customers fault. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault >> > appears [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Vehicle is a POS by the number and frequency of required repairs.. Each item was fixed once. No "frequency" about it. > The fact that DC keeps repairing it shows that they know it is not the > customers fault. Again, rubbish. You know it and said as much to the OP when you told him he was "stretching it". Simply put, it is good business to just fix a problem rather than find blame for its cause. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault >> > appears [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The fact that DC keeps repairing it shows that they know it is not the > customers fault. > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault appears > to be that of DC, not the customer. You nor I know what the cause of the problems are so to make that assumption is absurd. Problems do occur with any make or model. What makes this different than many others is DC resolved them. > > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault appears > > to be that of DC, not the customer. > > You nor I know what the cause of the problems are so to make that > assumption is absurd. Not at all. The problems indicated are not easily caused by the customer with the exception of high centering the truck as Max suggested and the fact that DC fixed them indicates that they were not caused by the customer. > Problems do occur with any make or model. And I never said anything different. My concern is the frequency of occurrence of problems with this particular vehicle which is simply not either normal or acceptable. > What makes this different than many others is DC resolved them. No, it simply indicates that DC knows that these problems are not the customers fault but feel free to give me a list of current auto manufacturers that routinely ignore warranty issues. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Not at all. The problems indicated are not easily caused by the customer > with the exception of high centering the truck as Max suggested and the > fact > that DC fixed them indicates that they were not caused by the customer. DC fixed it because the truck was under warranty, no other reason needed. The fact that DC fixed it means nothing more than DC is standing fast on its agreement to fix the truck under warranty. Its simply good business to not argue with a customer over issues that will promote customer satisfaction and perhaps another sale. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault > appears [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > customers fault but feel free to give me a list of current auto > manufacturers that routinely ignore warranty issues. >> > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures >over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Nope, but this particular vehicle appears to be a POS and the fault appears >to be that of DC, not the customer. geez tom. i know you like to carry these discussions to incredibly boring and trivial lengths, but it gets old. every company has "lemens", including cars, boats, trains, etc. maybe this is one, maybe it isn't. you have no clue. you haven't put your sluthy mechanical skills to the first hand test with it. you are listnening to one guy bitch and believing what he says. maybe he caused it, maybe he didn't. you need to examine your thought process though. some guy like this one writes in and you believe him lock stock and barrell. but on the other hand, anyone else says anything, even if they are actually a mechanic with skills and knowledge that exceed yours and you argue with them for weeks. > >> > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of failures > >over [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > geez tom. i know you like to carry these discussions to incredibly > boring and trivial lengths, but it gets old. And yet, you keep reading it. > every company has > "lemens", including cars, boats, trains, etc. maybe this is one, > maybe it isn't. you have no clue. Sure I do, if it really had this many problems and they kept fixing it, I would call it a lemon. > you haven't put your sluthy > mechanical skills to the first hand test with it. you are listnening > to one guy bitch and believing what he says. maybe he caused it, > maybe he didn't. Usually people who cause the damage AND get it fixed for free don't complain the way this a.shole is. They may call the truck weak, but not a lemon and usually don't bad mouth the company this way. I personally don't care one way or the other, his opinion has no effect on mine because as you say, it could be complete BS and he is whining WAY TO MUCH for me to take him seriously. > you need to examine your thought process though. > some guy like this one writes in and you believe him lock stock and > barrell. but on the other hand, anyone else says anything, even if > they are actually a mechanic with skills and knowledge that exceed > yours and you argue with them for weeks. LOL, get real. I am arguing with Max who doesn't even seem to know what a compression ration stands for (or is just trying to start another argument) and who likes to argue with me even more than I do with him. Now if you have something of actual value to add, feel free to jump in otherwise, STFU. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >> > I didn't say that but there has to be a limit on the number of >failures [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >and who likes to argue with me even more than I do with him. Now if you >have something of actual value to add, feel free to jump in otherwise, STFU. well......i have just this to add then tom........you are even more f.cked up than i thought. but no problem, you only make a continual moron out of yourself. i'll just stfu and watch you implode some more then. enjoy tom, i know i will. >> No double standard about it. Mechanical things have problems, whether it > be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This would only be completely valid if it happened to all vehicles and it > simply doesn't. It doesn't? There are PERFECT machines out there? EVERY stinking one has NO defects? Find me one that proves this point you are desperate to make. Make sure its fasirly complex like a motor vehicle, weighs at least 2000lbs, and goes at least 50MPH, or moves more than 10 tons. > Proven mechanical things have problems when things are not > assembled properly, Exactly, thats why a warranty is offered. > substandard parts are use in their assembly, PROOF? > and / or > when they simply wear out and this last reason is directly affected by the > first two. No, wear is directly affected by amount of use. It is INdirectly affected by the other two. >> Correct, BUT, the issue is STILL the service rendered, not the problem. > > No, it is not. I don't care how many times they are willing to fix it if > it > shouldn't have happened in the first place. I suggest then, that you not buy anything with paint on it, lest you get the one that didn't work out perfectly. >> When you build a million of something, there will be problems of some > sort within [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > individual > vehicle and over what period of time regardless of how they are addressed. Yup, and that number of problems is addressed in the lemon laws. > Many of the problems that he experienced simply should not have happened > at > all within the time frame he gave such as the pealing paint, failed trans > linkage, and Y pipe failure which indicate a problem with QC and the parts > being used. Or owner abuse. So far, you've yet to prove your point (QC), while my point is that the failure could have happened for reasons other than manufacturer defect. Yet, while the manufacturer may not have been at fault, they STILL came through on warranty items. > Yea, but DC also scored a negative for it happening in the first place so > their combined score is still ZERO. Well then, according to your logic, you are assuming the dealer has another brand for sale on the lot. >> >> Sorry, it DOES mean they actually looked at it, because part of > prepping [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > >> > Once again, you are talking out of your a.s. Not at all. I worked for a small Chrysler Dealer in the mid 80's . I prepped all of the LeBaron coupes they had at the time, and I was required to put 10 miles on each one. Further, if you look at Fritz's site, I think he has the dealer prep process listed there, including the 10 mile req. Also, my truck had exactly 10 miles on it when delivered to me. > When I got my truck, it > had >> > a >> > large patch of paint worn thru on the roof where a chain from the car >> > carrier got it and they didn't catch it. Which proves nothing except that the dealer didn't follow proceedure on your truck. It has nothing to do with a test drive, and is merely your attempt to use an irrelevant item to prove a point you cannot make. My truck ALSO had scratches in the roof paint, but they DID test drive it per the required prep process. > Did they not wash your truck? If they did, then they were probably > standing > in the bed to wash the roof and could easily see it if they bothered to > look.. What makes you think that they pay any more attention to the > underside which is even more difficult to look at? Because two different people do the prep work. >> I assume then, that the dealer had a crystal ball, and looked up this > trucks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why would the dealer say what he did? Because any mechanical object takes time to work hte bugs out. Its the truth, even if its a poor PR move. > It would be better to instill > confidence in the buyer, not give warnings. I would suspect that this > dealer was getting many of this particular vehicles in for excessive > warranty work and figured that this would just be another one and he > appeared to be right. Well, when ya sell a lot of one thing, and cover the warranty, its likely you'll get a lot of them on warranty work. Thats just he way it is, nothing terrible about it. >> Yeah, everything that goes wrong on a vehicle is a substandard part, as > far [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to abuse such as a Y pipe, what other cause of pre-mature failure could > there be? Um, owner abuse, I mentioned that, didn't I? > LOL, that is where standards and QC come into the picture. You all or > nothing mentality really doesn't help you here. I never said that ALL of > the parts used were substandard, just an increasing number of them > probably > due to cost and QC. You claimed substandard parts in regard to shift linkage, y pipe, paint, and almost anything else mentioned. Yet no where do I see huge numbers of trucks sitting at dealers because of y pipes, paint, or shift linkage. Face it, the three mentioned look distinctly like someone took the truck offroad, and worked it a bit, and expected DC to repair it after getting hung up on a rock. Figure it out!! trans linkage, y pipe, "rusted out" trans pan, paint peeled off a bumper. Then we have the threats and juvenile demeanor displayed by the OP. This reads like a kid took dads truck off road, and scrambled to the dealer when he got in a jam. >> BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that just ONE of these things >> you've called "substandard" is in fact, substandard. > > Actually, you need to prove otherwise. Nope. You made the statement, now back it up. This is your typical BS spin. You claim something, and have no proof. Hell, you even as much as admitted the guy was stretching things a bit. > I have asked a number of times > exactly how the customer could have caused the failures and you have yet > to > come up with a single reason. Abuse. Abuse. Abuse. Look at the problems, and as I said, the only thing that ties them together is the owner/driver. > Instead, all you say is that sometimes this > happens which is complete bullshit. Everything happens for a reason and > if > you cannot come up with a customer related reason, then it has to be the > part or assembly itself which indicates a substandard part. I await you > proof otherwise. I've provided more than enough to substanciate my claim that abuse is a possibility. Meanwhile, you've made a definite claim of substandard parts. I won't wait for you to bring proof, because as usual, you won't. I have deleted at least two more claims of low QC which you did not address, and I find to be pointless in addressing again until you provide proof. Claiming that another car has functioning equipment does not prove the quality or lack thereof in the failed part/vehicle. > 4' into the air huh, sounds like abuse to me :-) although that is not the > point. It damn sure was, and it was a stupid move that, now past, I will gladly claim for bragging rights. >The point is that if he were complaining about front end problems > like you were, that could be attributed to customer abuse unless it was > happening to a large number of vehicles like in the case of the ball > joints > on this vehicle. Or the steering boxes. > Most of his actual problems would be hard to blame on > abuse as the parts involved are not easily subjected to abuse which leads > to > problems with the parts themselves and the high number of failures in a > relatively short period of time doesn't say much for the quality of this > vehicle. Unless he high centered the truck in the area of the trans linkage and y pipe...... SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >> No double standard about it. Mechanical things have problems, whether it > > be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sure its fasirly complex like a motor vehicle, weighs at least 2000lbs, and > goes at least 50MPH, or moves more than 10 tons. Yawn, yet more spin. I was referring to the frequency of the failures and you know that. > > Proven mechanical things have problems when things are not > > assembled properly, > > Exactly, thats why a warranty is offered. And excessive failures of this type is a clear indication of poor QC. > > substandard parts are use in their assembly, > > PROOF? The proof is in the pre-mature failure of the assembly when abuse is not evident. > > and / or > > when they simply wear out and this last reason is directly affected by the > > first two. > > No, wear is directly affected by amount of use. It is INdirectly affected by > the other two. Now that depends. Improper assembly indirectly affects it while a substandard part directly affects it. > >> Correct, BUT, the issue is STILL the service rendered, not the problem. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suggest then, that you not buy anything with paint on it, lest you get the > one that didn't work out perfectly. I already got that one since the paint is peeling off of my truck. > >> When you build a million of something, there will be problems of some > > sort within [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yup, and that number of problems is addressed in the lemon laws. Wrong. The lemon law refers to the number of times the same problem returns, not the total number of problems, especially if it is constantly different things. > > Many of the problems that he experienced simply should not have happened > > at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or owner abuse. Which you have yet to demonstrate, especially with the parts in question. > So far, you've yet to prove your point (QC), The proof is right in front of you. It happened and the dealer fixed it and you have yet to show customer fault or even how the customer could abuse these parts. > while my point > is that the failure could have happened for reasons other than manufacturer > defect. You keep making that point but have yet to prove it either. At least the dealer actions back up what I'm saying and you don't even have that. > Yet, while the manufacturer may not have been at fault, they STILL > came through on warranty items. LOL, yea, right, like that is ever gonna happen. In today's world with falling margins and fear of bankruptcy, unless they like the idea of going under, they are only going to repair what they have to and customer damage is not something that they have to repair. > > Yea, but DC also scored a negative for it happening in the first place so > > their combined score is still ZERO. > > Well then, according to your logic, you are assuming the dealer has another > brand for sale on the lot. Most of them do in todays world but what does that have to do with your point? > >> >> Sorry, it DOES mean they actually looked at it, because part of > > prepping [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > dealer prep process listed there, including the 10 mile req. Also, my truck > had exactly 10 miles on it when delivered to me. What does 10 miles have to do with any of his problems? I doubt that a trans pan, a Y pipe, seat belts, or even the shift linkage are going to show any problems in 10 miles, even if they are almost completely phucked. This would equate to the seatbelt being possibly used once the shift linkage used 3 times, 15 minutes of exposure on the Y pipe, paint, and trans pan. Yea, tuff test to pass. > > When I got my truck, it > > had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which proves nothing except that the dealer didn't follow proceedure on your > truck. Which is exactly my point. They don't always follow the procedures and even when they do, not all defective parts are obvious. > It has nothing to do with a test drive, And not all problems are found in a 10 minute test drive either. > and is merely your attempt to > use an irrelevant item to prove a point you cannot make. LOL, despite your spin, my point was more than made. According to you, all prep items are perfectly followed and if that were true, neither your or my truck would have been released to us in the condition that they were in and yet... Your own claim shows that not all prep items are followed, even when the damage is obvious so it seems rather easy for the the defective parts on his truck to get by. > My truck ALSO had > scratches in the roof paint, but they DID test drive it per the required > prep process. Big deal, so they test drove it. That doesn't mean that they found everything there either and come to think of it, your truck did have a bad steering box along with the damaged paint and you got it anyway. So much for your prep process catching all things. Thanks for proving my point once again. > > Did they not wash your truck? If they did, then they were probably > > standing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because two different people do the prep work. So what? What does that have to do with the price of tea leaves in China? I don't care if they have 50 people doing the pre-check. Anyone can miss something as shown by your own experience as well as mine. > >> I assume then, that the dealer had a crystal ball, and looked up this > > trucks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because any mechanical object takes time to work hte bugs out. Its the > truth, even if its a poor PR move. But this is a full product release. It should not have any serious bugs by that point but thank you for once again proving mine. Sometimes it takes time for defective parts to completely fail. > > It would be better to instill > > confidence in the buyer, not give warnings. I would suspect that this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you'll get a lot of them on warranty work. Thats just he way it is, nothing > terrible about it. Yes, there is. > >> Yeah, everything that goes wrong on a vehicle is a substandard part, as > > far [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Um, owner abuse, I mentioned that, didn't I? You keep saying that but have yet to give even one example of how. > > LOL, that is where standards and QC come into the picture. You all or > > nothing mentality really doesn't help you here. I never said that ALL of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > almost anything else mentioned. Yet no where do I see huge numbers of trucks > sitting at dealers because of y pipes, paint, or shift linkage. And you shouldn't but that doesn't change facts. When you reduce headroom in the design of the parts to the absolute minimum to save weight and cut costs, unless QC is at 100% (and it never is), defective and substandard parts are going to get through. Even though the percentage may be low, it still happens. Now all you need to add are the bean counters calculating the cost savings of these parts and reduced QC versus the percentage of bad parts getting to the factory floor and customer dissatisfaction and away we go. > Face it, the > three mentioned look distinctly like someone took the truck offroad, and > worked it a bit, and expected DC to repair it after getting hung up on a > rock. This is only valid if all three problems happend at the same time and if that were the case, DC would not repair it. The dealer might if they thought it might keep a good customer, but then they would have to either lie to DC or eat the cost so I doubt that they would fix it either when it is obvious customer damage because if they did that for everyone, they would not stay in business very long. > Figure it out!! trans linkage, y pipe, "rusted out" trans pan, paint > peeled off a bumper. Then we have the threats and juvenile demeanor > displayed by the OP. This reads like a kid took dads truck off road, and > scrambled to the dealer when he got in a jam. While I agree with you on the juvenile demeanor, if this is what happened, all of the repairs would have happened at the same time and that is not the case and BTW, I have dented cross over pipes and pans without them rusting out so that argument holds no water. > >> BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove that just ONE of these things > >> you've called "substandard" is in fact, substandard. > > > > Actually, you need to prove otherwise. > > Nope. You made the statement, now back it up. I don't have to, DC did it for me by performing the repairs. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow and yet, it does anyway. You claim it is always customer fault and have yet to come up with even a single way the customer could do that and DC not know it and repair it anyway. Now with all of the crap from you guys about how DC and others will cancel the power train warranty if they find out you used a K&N filter, I doubt that they will fix a truck that was high centered under warranty which is obvious customer damage. > This is your typical BS spin. > You claim something, and have no proof. Hell, you even as much as admitted > the guy was stretching things a bit. I don't need to prove it, it is as obvious as the sun rising tomorrow and DC making the repairs backs me up. The only one spinning here is you. > > I have asked a number of times > > exactly how the customer could have caused the failures and you have yet [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Abuse. Abuse. Abuse. Look at the problems, and as I said, the only thing > that ties them together is the owner/driver. Prove it, prove it, prove it. Nothing he said indicates that the problems all happened at the same time which is another assumption by you and who in their right mind wouldn't expect paint to peel when the painted part is damaged? The hood and fenders on my truck are undamaged and the paint is pealing off of them anyway. Does owning the truck or driving it count as abuse to you? > > Instead, all you say is that sometimes this > > happens which is complete bullshit. Everything happens for a reason and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've provided more than enough to substanciate my claim that abuse is a > possibility. You have as usual, proved nothing. Just because you say it is not proof and I have asked repeatedly how such parts could be abused and you have yet to answer. The best that you could come up with is accidental damage which is not abuse and the factory would never make such repairs under warranty, at least not if they wanted to make a profit. > Meanwhile, you've made a definite claim of substandard parts. Parts have an expected life and if they fail before that time and abuse cannot be proven, then it is a sub-standard part by definition. You have yet to prove abuse in any way and the dealers action indicate that abuse is not part of the equation but if you have proof otherwise.... > I won't wait for you to bring proof, because as usual, you won't. I don't have to, it is obvious and the dealer actions back me up. Since you have nothing backing up your claims, you are the one that needs to provide proof and of course, you have none so you try and spin it the other way. > I have deleted at least two more claims of low QC which you did not address, > and I find to be pointless in addressing again until you provide proof. Spin, spin, spin, LOL. > Claiming that another car has functioning equipment does not prove the > quality or lack thereof in the failed part/vehicle. It absoultly 100% does. > > 4' into the air huh, sounds like abuse to me :-) although that is not the > > point. > > It damn sure was, and it was a stupid move that, now past, I will gladly > claim for bragging rights. OK, how did you manage to launch you truck that high? > >The point is that if he were complaining about front end problems > > like you were, that could be attributed to customer abuse unless it was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or the steering boxes. Ok, the steering boxes as well, something else your 10 mile test drive did not catch because sometimes, defective and substandard parts do not fail or show problems immediately. > > Most of his actual problems would be hard to blame on > > abuse as the parts involved are not easily subjected to abuse which leads [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unless he high centered the truck in the area of the trans linkage and y > pipe...... But that would be obvious DAMAGE and I know of no dealer by me that would repair that under warranty, do you? If so. let me know which one :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> It doesn't? There are PERFECT machines out there? EVERY stinking one has > NO [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yawn, yet more spin. I was referring to the frequency of the failures and > you know that. Yes, I do, thats why I asked you to come up with a perfect service record for ANY complex machine and all its models. >> Exactly, thats why a warranty is offered. > > And excessive failures of this type is a clear indication of poor QC. Ok, so again, prove that there are excessive failures in any of the items Mr. F. Twit mentioned. >> PROOF? > > The proof is in the pre-mature failure of the assembly when abuse is not > evident. No, proof would be an excessive number of failures of a specific part. You don't have that. >> > While true, it is also a matter of HOW MANY problems occur with a >> > individual >> > vehicle and over what period of time regardless of how they are > addressed. Exactly. So if the number of similar problems is not way out of whack, its NOT a QC problem. Pretty much what I've been saying all along. >> Yup, and that number of problems is addressed in the lemon laws. > > Wrong. The lemon law refers to the number of times the same problem > returns, not the total number of problems, especially if it is constantly > different things. Bingo. Read what ya said, and remember that you claimed the OP's truck was a lemon. >> Or owner abuse. > > Which you have yet to demonstrate, especially with the parts in question. How hard is it for you to figure out? You know everything, but you cannot figure out that four of the problems occurred in one or two square feet on the bottom of the truck? Leaky trans seal, broken shift linkage, bad y pipe, "rusted out" trans pan, this screams out that someone center hung the truck. >> while my point >> is that the failure could have happened for reasons other than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You keep making that point but have yet to prove it either. At least the > dealer actions back up what I'm saying and you don't even have that. Sorry, you are wrong. I've given and repeated my answers to this. >> Yet, while the manufacturer may not have been at fault, they STILL >> came through on warranty items. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under, they are only going to repair what they have to and customer damage > is not something that they have to repair. But you constantly argue that customer satisfaction is paramount, which leads to one thing: the dealer will cover anything he can to keep the customer happy. >> Well then, according to your logic, you are assuming the dealer has > another >> brand for sale on the lot. > > Most of them do in todays world but what does that have to do with your > point? Exactly. You mentioned that dealers would be somehow suspect if they sold two brands, I pointed out that such a situation had nothing to do with it. Above, I SHOW why it has nothing to do with it, and you ask why it has anything to do with it. Well, I don't know, YOU brough that point up. > What does 10 miles have to do with any of his problems? I doubt that a > trans pan, a Y pipe, seat belts, or even the shift linkage are going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 3 times, 15 minutes of exposure on the Y pipe, paint, and trans pan. Yea, > tuff test to pass. Exactly, thats why I'm saying that something extraordinary happened here, not a massive QC problem, not a dealer/DC fault. > Big deal, so they test drove it. That doesn't mean that they found > everything there either and come to think of it, your truck did have a bad > steering box along with the damaged paint and you got it anyway. So much > for your prep process catching all things. Thanks for proving my point > once > again. My point is, the truck was good to go when it left, with no QC problems. You claim things take a while to happen, and thats true. But in that "while", things other than "lack of quality" can happen as well. SO while you scream about QC problems, you have no real proof, not even a suggestion or an example of a QC problem. How you totally missed beating the ball joint issue to death is beyond me. THAT would have proven your point in spades, but ONLY on that item. Meanwhile, I've noted the location of all the "damage" and it certainly smacks of a truck that got stuck out on a trail. >> Because any mechanical object takes time to work hte bugs out. Its the >> truth, even if its a poor PR move. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that point but thank you for once again proving mine. Sometimes it takes > time for defective parts to completely fail. That, or about 15 seconds out in the woods on a goat path with boulders. >> Well, when ya sell a lot of one thing, and cover the warranty, its likely >> you'll get a lot of them on warranty work. Thats just he way it is, > nothing >> terrible about it. > > Yes, there is. ??? WTF? you prefer they not offer a warranty? Jeeez, ya whine when they offer to fix it for free, because that means its flawed, but you'd HOWL if you had to fix it yourself if they felt thew truck was perfect, because that would cost you money and would be a bad way to handle a customer. >> Um, owner abuse, I mentioned that, didn't I? > > You keep saying that but have yet to give even one example of how. I've mentioned the same example about 25 times, and I've noted exactly why and how I think it happened. > And you shouldn't but that doesn't change facts. When you reduce headroom > in the design of the parts to the absolute minimum to save weight and cut [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > we > go. Yeah, away we go to the cost/benefit ratio, where th bean counters realize that cutting costs TOO far on the new stuff means too high a cost on labor under warranty. How stupid do you think they are? They aren't gonna cut costs on QC so far that they lose money on warranty repairs. > This is only valid if all three problems happend at the same time and if > that were the case, DC would not repair it. LOL, well, I recall a few lines up where you claimed that stuff takes time to fail. > The dealer might if they > thought it might keep a good customer, but then they would have to either > lie to DC or eat the cost (dripping sarcasm) Wow, that would be tough and unheard of, right? > so I doubt that they would fix it either when it > is obvious customer damage because if they did that for everyone, they > would > not stay in business very long. LOL, The DEALER would benefit by doing this because he gets paid, and has a happy customer. > While I agree with you on the juvenile demeanor, if this is what happened, > all of the repairs would have happened at the same time and that is not > the > case and BTW, I have dented cross over pipes and pans without them > rusting > out so that argument holds no water. Exactly. We've BOTH done damage to the parts mentioned, and yet, we don't have massive rust or problems. AND some how, with NO other interference (at least, you dispute my suggestion to that end) this guy had a pan fall apart, a y pipe fail, and his linkage is broken. So your examples prove out what I've been saying is possible. >> Nope. You made the statement, now back it up. > > I don't have to, DC did it for me by performing the repairs. You are so totally wrapped up in your bullshit, you MISSED completely the balljoint recall. WTF? are you SLIPPING? I HAND you an entrance, and you blindly go about denying being wrong. I gave you a chance to do somehting other than spin, and you chose to spin ANYWAY. I can't prove > that the sun will rise tomorrow and yet, it does anyway. Sure ya can, many astronomers have proven it. > You claim it is > always customer fault Nope. Not "ALWAYS", never said that, and never would. Why? BALL JOINTS. Spin away, you missed the obvious. > and have yet to come up with even a single way the > customer could do that and DC not know it and repair it anyway. Certainly have. I've detailed it about 30 times. > Now with > all of the crap from you guys about how DC and others will cancel the > power > train warranty if they find out you used a K&N filter, I doubt that they > will fix a truck that was high centered under warranty which is obvious > customer damage. LOL, more spin....... > Prove it, prove it, prove it. Nothing he said indicates that the problems > all happened at the same time which is another assumption by you and who > in > their right mind wouldn't expect paint to peel when the painted part is > damaged? You shoudl see some of the things people expect. Hell, you should read some of the things YOU expect. >> Meanwhile, you've made a definite claim of substandard parts. > > Parts have an expected life and if they fail before that time and abuse > cannot be proven, then it is a sub-standard part by definition. Yup. However, you've offered no proof that any of the parts that failed did so before that time. (Hint: Dakota BALL JOINTS) >> I won't wait for you to bring proof, because as usual, you won't. > > I don't have to, it is obvious and the dealer actions back me up. Since > you > have nothing backing up your claims, you are the one that needs to provide > proof and of course, you have none so you try and spin it the other way. LOL, only one spinnning here is you. I opened the door, and you refused to come through, despite having a perfect example. > Spin, spin, spin, LOL. Ball joints, Ball joints, Ball joints! >> It damn sure was, and it was a stupid move that, now past, I will gladly >> claim for bragging rights. > > OK, how did you manage to launch you truck that high? Snow piled about 18" deep. Stupidly, I failed to actually test for how solid it was, and figured I'd push right through, as normal. Backed up for effect, as in, snow flying everywhere, and got a 30' running start. In stead of going through, I went up. The report I got was that a person could see UNDER my truck while looking OVER the cars in the parking lot. >> >The point is that if he were complaining about front end problems >> > like you were, that could be attributed to customer abuse unless it was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or > show problems immediately. Right, like linkage that has no load on it, or a trans pan that rusts through, or a seal that doesn't leak immediately, or a y pipe that mysteriously is not functioning (although no details were given as to why). All problems that could fail for no apparent reason other than wear. Great, I can see one part on one vehicle in say... 25,000 or 10,000, but when ALL of those parts in such close proximity to one another, fail, particularly parts that typically go 100k or better (shift linkage, trans pan??) that raises some questions. > But that would be obvious DAMAGE and I know of no dealer by me that would > repair that under warranty, do you? If so. let me know which one :-) Any dealer willing to make a buck and keep a customer happy, so long as his zone rep looks the other way. Not saying its totally honest, but its worth the customer satisfaction. (which might explain the five star ratings....) SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > >> It doesn't? There are PERFECT machines out there? EVERY stinking one has > > NO [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, I do, thats why I asked you to come up with a perfect service record > for ANY complex machine and all its models. LOL, there is a big difference between a perfect record and something that craps out every day. > >> Exactly, thats why a warranty is offered. > > > > And excessive failures of this type is a clear indication of poor QC. > > Ok, so again, prove that there are excessive failures in any of the items > Mr. F. Twit mentioned. How about the number of failures alone. One or two failures is usually acceptable but this ma |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message