Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

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

> > So why do some brands of a given type (minivan, pickup, sports car,
> > etc.) have much worse reliability rates than others of the same type?
> > I doubt it's because Chevy owners are slobs and Toyota owners aren't.

> Consider the use the vehicle is put to. A sports car is going to have worse
> reliability simply because people that buy sports cars don't drive them
> like little old ladies that only drive it to and from church on Sunday.

But that doesn't explain why some sports cars are much more reliable
than others or why some frumpy sedans compare poorly to other frumpy
sedans.

> > CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and
> > reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability,
>
> "problem rate" of transmissions isn't about reliability?

It is, but for some reason you mentioned satisfaction, which is
different from reliability or quality.

> > why do you bring up satisfaction?

> That's silly. Are you arguing that people have a high level of satisfaction
> with vehicles they consider to have low reliability?

Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of
connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many
owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell
surveys that they're very unreliable.

> > > 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.
> >
> > That's not the impression I got from him. I thought he didn't like
> > the surveys because they didn't include nearly enough information to
> > make sound conclusions.
> >
> > > I hope that you aren't insulted that I spelled it out for you.
> >
> > You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public.

> I think the problem is you haven't been paying attention.

You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even
though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or
Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey.

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of
> connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many
> owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell
> surveys that they're very unreliable.
>

Well, in that case your original transmission survey must mean that
people love the -older- Chrysler products with -less- reliable transmissions
even better than the new ones with -more- reliable transmissions.

Thus, Chrysler screwed up because they made the transmissions more
reliable.

> You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even
> though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or
> Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey.
>

Why then don't you tell us what Daniel's objections to the CR reliability
survey
are, since you know them so much better than I do, and why his objections
are wrong?

Ted

MaceFace wrote:

> 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?
>
The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," it was to allow the
torque-convertor clutch to be used in a partial-lock mode that no other
transmission had done before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its
lifetime and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was
causing failures.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Steve 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?

> The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns," it was to allow the
> torque-convertor clutch to be used in a partial-lock mode that no other
> transmission had done before. The fluid was re-specced to improve its
> lifetime and performance (reduction of shudder) not because it was
> causing failures.

Quite correct. The laughability of the Consumer Reports chart is that it
shows apparently-big differences in transmission reliability between
Chrysler minivans of different model years *that use transmission systems
identical in every respect*. There are only two plausible explanations:

1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are
insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than
average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average"
categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless
and therefore meaningless overall, or

2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random
results.

Or, (3), both of the above.

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.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

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

> > Why is it silly when more than one survey has shown a lack of
> > connection between reliability and satisfaction? For example, many
> > owners of European sports cars love them even though owners tell
> > surveys that they're very unreliable.

> Well, in that case your original transmission survey must mean that
> people love the -older- Chrysler products with -less- reliable transmissions
> even better than the new ones with -more- reliable transmissions.
>
> Thus, Chrysler screwed up because they made the transmissions more
> reliable.

The problem with your thinking is that CR's satisfaction surveys ask
only about the whole car, not each component, as their reliability
surveys do.

> > You're the one who introduced satisfaction into this discussion, even
> > though it has nothing to do with the original thread, reliability, or
> > Daniel's objections to CR's reliability survey.

> Why then don't you tell us what Daniel's objections to the CR reliability
> survey are, since you know them so much better than I do, and why his
> objections are wrong?

Daniel can explain his viewpoints better than I can.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> The laughability of the Consumer Reports chart is that it
> shows apparently-big differences in transmission reliability between
> Chrysler minivans of different model years *that use transmission systems
> identical in every respect*. There are only two plausible explanations:
>
> 1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are
> insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than
> average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average"
> categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless
> and therefore meaningless overall, or
>
> 2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random
> results.

> Or, (3), both of the above.

Couldn't manufacturing problems also cause big differences in
reliability?

If you look at CR's reliability charts for vehicles that differ only in
name, like a Chrysler Voyager vs. Dodge Caravan, you'll rarely find no
more than a one-rank difference, i.e. the engine of one may be rated
much better than average but merely better than average for the other
vehicle. It seems that when the differences are greater, then the
vehicles or their parts came from different factories.

What about the possibility of defects in manufacture?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> > You apparently fit in that category.
>
> Why do you think that?

Because you have expressed unwarranted confidence in CR's "data".

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

It matters when the transmission systems are the same (not just similar,
not almost the same, not mostly alike, but *IDENTICAL* in all respects,
including subsystems, control systems, vehicle weight, engine power and
all other parameters relevant to the transmission's health) for model
years CR claims have significantly different system reliability.

There are only two plausible explanations:

1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are
insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than
average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average"
categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless
and therefore meaningless overall, or

2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random
results.

Or, (3), both of the above.

> The correlation button on a calculator isn't biased.

GIGO. Do you remember what that stands for?

> CR doesn't take money from advertisers,

So they're fond of trumpeting. In point of fact, every issue of CR is
nothing but an 80-page-long "Look at us, we are so fabulous and wonderful
and unbiased, and we're experts in everything from oil filters to red
wine" advertisement for Consumers Union and the various publications they
put out.

DS

Consumer Reports reliability reports are based upon its subscriber base
which submit reliability information once a year.

I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. The
reports for Chrysler transmissions show that they were a real problem back
in the early to mid 90's and that they have significantly improved ever
since.

The best source for reliability data would be the much larger sample
Chrysler has based upon warranty work; but Chrysler keeps that data close to
its vest.

Consumer Reports did find that US made short wheel base models had different
reliability issues than long wheel base Canadian built mini-vans. This
turned out to be quite accurate. But giving any one rating for any one area
too much weight gives too much credibility to their reliability reports
considering their relatively small data base.

Richard.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> 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?

Because the exact same transmission design is used in several of the
years listed, yet the reliability ratings are dramatically different
year to year. The tranmissions don't know what year they are so they
have know way to know that they should break if made in one year, but
not break if made the year after.

If the data was at all accurate, you would expect to see step changes in
reliability only if a step change was made in the transmission design,
materials or assembly processes. The reality is that none of these have
happened at every major reliability change listed in the CR table.
Thus the data is very highly suspect at best.


Matt