Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Matt Whiting wrote:

> I've seen enough study on human perception to know how unreliable it is
> and how easily many people can be swayed.

Amen. *clink*

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more than 20
> years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic car brands is
> just so blatant that it is ridiculous.
>

Keep in mind that while CR may not cater to advertisers they have to
sell magazines off the magazine rack to continue to replace subscribers
lost through attrition with new subscribers.

Since there's more domestic cars sold than imports in the US, (even
today) if you gore the ox owned by most people, rather than the ox
owned by fewer people, you will get more attention.

Ted

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything
> posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy
> was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests".

> > What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely,
> > both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't,
> > either by model year or CR issue, or admit that you don't have proof.
> >
> > The fact that brand twins have shown very similar CR reliability
> > ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you
> > wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage

> > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it.
>
> Keep a-lookin'.

I already have, but apparently you haven't.

> > Cite two models and a year.
>
> Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework;

You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You
haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything
> posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy
> was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests".

> > What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely,
> > both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't,
> > either by model year or CR issue, or admit that you don't have proof.
> >
> > The fact that brand twins have shown very similar CR reliability
> > ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you
> > wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage

> > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it.
>
> Keep a-lookin'.

I already have, but apparently you haven't.

> > Cite two models and a year.
>
> Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework;

You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You
haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim.

And you are a twit for postng multiple times.

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
>> What's your point with this question? It's nonresponsive to anything
>> posted so far in this thread. The Toyota Corolla/Geo Prizm dichotomy
>> was primarily based on CR's own, er, "tests".
>
>> > What Corolla-Prizm dichotomy? Those cars have always ranked closely,
>> > both in CR's judgement and their surveys. Show me where they didn't,
>> > either by model year or CR issue, or admit that you don't have proof.
>> >
>> > The fact that brand twins have shown very similar CR reliability
>> > ratings indicates that CR's surveys are very repeatable, something you
>> > wouldn't expect if they were useless garbage
>
>> > I've looked for it in their reliability tables but haven't found it.
>>
>> Keep a-lookin'.
>
> I already have, but apparently you haven't.
>
>> > Cite two models and a year.
>>
>> Asked and answered. It's not for me to do your homework;
>
> You've cited the Corolla/Prizm, but you're wrong about that pair. You
> haven't shown one valid example to back up your claim.
>

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, David wrote:

> > Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different
> > properties then Dextron.
>
> True, but there is no "t" in DEXRON.

And more importantly there's no "I" in "team" or orange juice in Sunny
Delight.

Norm De Plume wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, David wrote:
>
>
>>>Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different
>>>properties then Dextron.
>>
>>True, but there is no "t" in DEXRON.
>
>
> And more importantly there's no "I" in "team" or orange juice in Sunny
> Delight.
>

Or cat in a Kit-Kat, or dog in hot dogs... uh, nevermind. Not so sure
about that last one....

Matt Whiting wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly wrote:

>Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar
>results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge
>and Chrysler minivans,

>As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more
>than 20 years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic
>car brands is just so blatant that it is ridiculous.

>I'm not necessarily placing the blame on CR as much as on
>their subscribers who submit the surveys. However, I do
>believe that the biases that CR publishes have affected
>the perceptions of their readers and these perceptions then
>in turn affect the survey results.

This is false. In the 1970s they said GM car quality wasn't inferior
to that of Japanese vehicles (based on what their reader surveys); when
they first tested the Corolla and Nova they gave the edge to the Nova
for handling (the Corolla lacked an anti-sway bar), and when they first
tested the Toyota Tacome pickup they ranked it last and stated on their
cover, "Ford Beats Toyota." I doubt a publication with an
anti-American bias would do any of this. They have expressed opinions
about vehicles, such as by calling interior materials cheap looking,
but such opinions don't affect their scoring.

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
>
>>Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar
>>results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge
>>and Chrysler minivans,
>
>
>>As I said earlier, I'm a CR subscriber and have been for more
>>than 20 years now, however, their biases on import vs. domestic
>>car brands is just so blatant that it is ridiculous.
>
>
>>I'm not necessarily placing the blame on CR as much as on
>>their subscribers who submit the surveys. However, I do
>>believe that the biases that CR publishes have affected
>>the perceptions of their readers and these perceptions then
>>in turn affect the survey results.
>
>
> This is false. In the 1970s they said GM car quality wasn't inferior
> to that of Japanese vehicles (based on what their reader surveys); when
> they first tested the Corolla and Nova they gave the edge to the Nova
> for handling (the Corolla lacked an anti-sway bar), and when they first
> tested the Toyota Tacome pickup they ranked it last and stated on their
> cover, "Ford Beats Toyota." I doubt a publication with an
> anti-American bias would do any of this. They have expressed opinions
> about vehicles, such as by calling interior materials cheap looking,
> but such opinions don't affect their scoring.
>

Those comments most certainly affect the perceptions of their readers
and that was my point. I wasn't talking about their scoring.

Matt

"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.