Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> 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.
>

Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time?

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> 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

I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the
Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly
different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and
manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Richard wrote:

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

"Self-selection" and "Sample population" are concepts covered in
any first-year stats course.

> I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place.

I don't. Not since about 1984!

> 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.

Agreed.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

>> 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.

> I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and
> the Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had
> vastly different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were
> *identical* and manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me
> decades ago.

Yep. That's one of a great many examples. They were also effusive in their
praise of the 1990 Volkswagen Jetta's quality and reliability. And of the
1986 Lawn Chief #51D lawn mower. And of a particular 1987 Sears Kenmore
dishwasher. And of a particular phone. And a particular oil filter, etc.,
ad nauseam, *all* of which, in my experience, contained major flaws in
design, engineering, materials and/or build, which in turn caused poor
reliability, poor performance and/or poor durability. My product
experiences got much better when I quit reading CR and started using my
own brain instead.

And then, a couple years ago, when they declared themselves headlamp
experts and started "testing" car headlamps based on criteria fabricated
out of whole cloth, well...

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Whoever wrote:

> Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time?

Not between several of the "worse than average"/"average" or "worse than
average"/"better than average" year pairs in that chart.

(regarding Consumer Reports)

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>
> > I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place.
>
> I don't. Not since about 1984!

which was several years after they comparison-tested a Toyota Celica
V6 and a Mustang II I4. Guess which had better acceleration.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "MaceFace" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > 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 did I post it? All I asked was why Chrysler changed the fluid
specs so many times.

James C. Reeves wrote:

>I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the
>Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly
>different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and
>manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago.

I remember something about the ratings for those cars because I was
undecided between them, and they always received similar ratings from
the magazine, not vastly different ones.

The 1985 & later Novas/Prizms were identical to the FWD Corollas,
except for body panels and, at least in the early years, also interior,
radio, radiator, and possibly the driveshafts. The factory in
California originally made only Novas but later added Corollas to the
same assembly line (first the FX-16, rather different from the regular
Corolla), and, at least initially, the Chevy and Toyota brand vehicles
had different ABS. Virtually all the reported differences in reported
reliability for these cars appeared to be related to the differing
components.

Steve wrote:
>
> The fluid was never about "preventing breakdowns,"

Do you mean I can run the transmission without any?

> 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.

If it wasn't about breakdowns, why did they issue a bulletin warning
Ultradrive owners to ignore the DEXRON marking stamped into the
dipstick?

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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
>
>
> I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the
> Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly
> different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and
> manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago.

Yes, I seem to remember that anomaly as well. I'm not saying though
that CR is at fault as much as their subscribers, of which I'll admit I
am one. Assuming they aren't editting the data, the likely issue is the
data submitted by their subscribers. I know how fickle people can be
and how easily mislead. After CR tells people for years how great
Toyota's are and how poor Chevy's are, I can easily see people being
conditioned to question every little flaw in a Chevy and overlooking
similar issues with a Toyota.

I recently test drove several small cars, Toyota Corolla and Dodge Neon
in particular. I expected the Corolla to me miles ahead of the Neon
given that they are nearly at opposite ends of the CR rating spectrum.
I believe the Corolla is still in the top 5, although it has slipped in
the last few years and the Neon was dead last as I recall. I found the
driving position of the Corolla to be poor with the steering wheel much
too close to the dash and the pedals. I simply couldn't get a
comfortable driving position. Either my knees hit the bolster or my
arms were stretched out virtually straight. Also, the standard shift
models (I drove two in case one was an anomaly) were almost impossible
to shift without having the engine rev during shifts. You literally had
to consciously let off the throttle a good 1/2 second or so before
depressing the clutch to avoid this. I've driven manual transmission
vehicles for 30 years and never had anything like this.

I found the Neon to be a fairly pleasant car to drive. A little more
engine noise and vibration than the Corolla, but also better power. And
the steering wheel wasn't quite as long a stretch and the shifting was
much better. I was planning to buy a Neon until I found that this was
the last year and also the dealer couldn't locate one even close to what
I wanted. Most come with that blasted deck spoiler which impedes the
rear visiblity, which is not geat to start with.


Matt