Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is:
>
> _______Chrysler minivans_________average vehicle_______
>
> 2004:_____very low__________________very low
> 2003:_____low_______________________very low
> 2002:_____average___________________low
> 2001:_____low_______________________low
> 2000:_____very high_________________low
> 1999:_____very high_________________low
> 1998:_____high______________________low
> 1997:_____high______________________average

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".

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
> > Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is:
> >
> > _______Chrysler minivans_________average vehicle_______
> >
> > 2004:_____very low__________________very low
> > 2003:_____low_______________________very low
> > 2002:_____average___________________low
> > 2001:_____low_______________________low
> > 2000:_____very high_________________low
> > 1999:_____very high_________________low
> > 1998:_____high______________________low
> > 1997:_____high______________________average
>
> 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".

Then where are we supposed to get our information, from friends and
mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are great and "Jap
stuff" is junk? Those of us who aren't experts or industry insiders
have very few other sources of reliability information, but it seems
that CR's overall reliability scores coincide well with Popular
Mechanics' and the records that one large fleet leasing company keeps.

CR reliability surveys do seem to get it right for digital cameras,
TVs, and central air conditioners (A/C experts seem to agree except for
York, which they hold in higher regard), so why should they be so wrong
about cars?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>>> Consumer Reports says the problem rate for transmissions is:

<snip idiocy>

>> 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".

> Then where are we supposed to get our information

Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
choice do we have but to believe them?". I reject that argument as...well,
stupid. Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public
library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR
because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind
is...well, it's lazy.

> from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are
> great

If you have a mechanic who believes that Chevs and Fords are "great", it's
a fairly good wager you'd do well to find another mechanic.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly 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".
>
> > Then where are we supposed to get our information
>
> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
> choice do we have but to believe them?".

That's a ridiculous summation, and what does the version of the
transmission in each model year when CR is reporting the reliabily
model year by model year? Also if CR's reliability surveys are so
useless, why do they strangely correlate with the results of two other
surveys?

> Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public
> library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR
> because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind
> is...well, it's lazy.

I wish they'd go back to testing more budget products and providing
more information and fewer dumbed-down Money magazine-style articles,
but they haven't changed their auto reliability surveys, except how
they're tabulated (formerly only like year cars compared, now all cars
compared together).

But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the
reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses?
Talking to people doesn't work well because of product loyalty (even
lemons have their fans) or exceptional experiences, and initial quality
and long term reliability are only loosely related (as so many British
luxury cars have shown).

> > from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are
> > great

> If you have a mechanic who believes that Chevs and Fords are "great", it's
> a fairly good wager you'd do well to find another mechanic.

I'm sure that there are many good mechanics who just don't know other
brands. OTOH I haven't let a mechanic touch any car of mine in years.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
>> choice do we have but to believe them?".
>
> That's a ridiculous summation

Only for those who blindly believe in the Gospel According to Consumer
Reports. You apparently fit in that category.

> and what does the version of the transmission in each model year when CR
> is reporting the reliabily model year by model year?

Would you like to try that again, this time with a complete, parsable
sentence?

> Also if CR's reliability surveys are so useless, why do they strangely
> correlate with the results of two other surveys?

Whether they do or not depends on your own biases -- and how much you know
about how the magazine business works.

> But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the
> reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses?

Well, for starters, turn off the television set...

> initial quality and long term reliability are only loosely related (as
> so many British luxury cars have shown).

Quite true.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
> choice do we have but to believe them?".
> >
> > That's a ridiculous summation

> Only for those who blindly believe in the Gospel According to Consumer
> Reports. You apparently fit in that category.

Why do you think that? I've expressed reservations about their
surveys, and your own earlier statement says this -- with a lot of
exaggeration.

> 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".

> > and what does the version of the transmission in each model
> > year [have to do with anything] when CR is reporting the
> > reliabily model year by model year?

> Would you like to try that again, this time with a complete, parsable
> sentence?

See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the
reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the
transmissions matter?

> > Also if CR's reliability surveys are so useless, why do they strangely
> > correlate with the results of two other surveys?

> Whether they do or not depends on your own biases --

The correlation button on a calculator isn't biased.

> and how much you know about how the magazine business works.

CR doesn't take money from advertisers, which makes them inherently
less biased than other magazines.

> > But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the
> > reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses?
>
> Well, for starters, turn off the television set...

No, I mean a real answer, not a piece of flippant fluff.

> > initial quality and long term reliability are only loosely related (as
> > so many British luxury cars have shown).
>
> Quite true.

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> > Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public
> > library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR
> > because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind
> > is...well, it's lazy.

Actually, I don't believe they were ever what they were once perceived to
be.
Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio
and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst
sets that man has ever put together.
Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking
very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca.

wrote:

>Actually, I don't believe they were ever what they were once perceived to
>be.
>Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio
>and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst
>sets that man has ever put together.

They've always rated according to performance, not reliability, unless
samples failed during testing, so old GEs weren't penalized for their
riveted circuit boards or Zeniths for their bad x-ray safety
capacitors. On the other hand they went from rating Motorola Quasar
highly one year to poorly the next year, and apparently they were right
because for the newer model Motorola issued about 30 design changes,
almost all related to grounding to eliminate power supply interference.

I still have a Sears (Sanyo) TV from the 1970s that was rated highly.
It's needed some new electrolytic capacitors, the wire wraps had to be
soldered, the convergence rings crumbled (I was going to toss it
because of that, but my dog spotted some new ones on the ground during
a walk), and I had to patch holes eroded into the tuner contacts.

>Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking
>very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca.

Why would they employ so many electrical engineers just for superficial
testing?

wrote:
> Through high school and college, I worked weekends and holiday in radio
> and TV repair. CR was a cheerleader for some of the absolute worst
> sets that man has ever put together.
> Whether they were actively dishonest, incompetent, or just were looking
> very superficially at the equipment, their advice was pure caca.

Late sixties and early seventies, their main criterion for television
quality was pincushion distortion. Minor things like cost of service
and frequency of failure apparently weren't considered.

Nowadays, computer people tend to know what pincushion is. But back then,
I did my own informal surveys. Even when I showed the customers the
pincushion distortion on their own television sets, they couldn't spot it.
So the smart people listened to us and bought Zeniths and hardly ever saw
us again, and the CR faithful ignored us and bought Admiral and Motorola
and saw us about 3 times a year for a couple hundred dollars a year.

On major purchases I'll call a friend who subscribes to CR, and if my
choice of product is high in their list I re-evaluate.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
> choice do we have but to believe them?". I reject that argument as...well,
> stupid. Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public
> library and take a look at what they were in the '60s --

It was back in the mid- to late-60's that they were making television
repairmen scads of money by rating the worst sets highest and the best
sets lowest. So even back then they sucked.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.