"MaceFace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions
> > were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid job
> > of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner
Retards'
> > "research".
>
> So why did Chrysler respec the fluid 3-4 times since introducing their
> 1st 4-spd auto? Was it because they had no breakdown problems?
>

Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally
posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission.

When people own cars their vehicle satisfaction is driven by expectations
and
what the actual maintainence history.

For example I would be extremely dissatisfied with a vehicle that had to
have
all 4 tires replaced every 4 years and each tire cost $500. I do not think
it
reasonable to pay $2000 for a set of tires every 4 years. However this is
exactly
what the people who drive around in trucks with giant-ass tires jacked up
into God's ass do, and they apparently have a high level of satisfaction
with
their vehicle.

Those same people might be dissatisfied with a vehicle that has a
transmission
that breaks down every 4 years requiring a $2000 rebuild. I on the other
hand
might be perfectly fine with this if I was putting 20,000 miles a year on
the
vehicle, delivering pizza.

With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the
truck-jacked-up-into-god's-ass
would rate very high, the pizza car would rate very low. Even though both
myself
and the truck-jacked-up-into-gods-ass drivers would have an equally high
level
of satisfaction with our vehicles.

This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's
trying
to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. I hope that you
aren't
insulted that I spelled it out for you.

Ted