1998 Grand Caravan

Page 2 of 13  
Ron wrote:


Hmmm - you do no maintenance and then make broad statements about life expectations of transmissions where you live? I don't live in Phoenix, but I'm thinking that if you would change the fluid and filter once in a while, you might get better service out of them. Fluid changeouts in today's trannies are almost a must for higher mileage.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haev not checked on my '94 yet, but my 1990 grand caravan has it: P R N OD D L.... And the tcc does disengage when the accellerator is released in D. (But it does still provide pretty good engine braking in D.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

had
OD
D.
how do you know this ?
scan tool ?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary Glaenzer wrote:

My guess would be "tachometer." If the TCC doesn't disengage, there will be no drop in RPM when you lift your foot off the gas. Its also obvious that the RPM will flare high then drop down when you get BACK on the gas as the TCC locks up shortly afterward.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you would be correct.

Absolutely correct.
My guess is that the gear labels on the newer vans may not be the same as the older ones. I believe my 1990 is the first year they came out with the A-604 and 3.3 litter engine.
One thing my 1990 beater does that my 1994 didn't is shift to overdrive no matter what position the accelerator is in at about 85-90 MPH (well, while in overdrive of course). If I feel like being really mean to 'er and pushing it to 100+ I have to put the gearshift in drive to keep 'er from shifting to OD. (You should see the blue paint fly off then!) My 1994 will always downshift to 3rd past 70 MPH when the gas is floored.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My 1994 had an "O/D OFF" button on the dash.

My paint got scratched up by the previous owner, but in spite of that, I have NOT had the problems that I have seen iwht other vans! Damn, there are some around that I swear you can watch the paint peal off af they drive in traffic! What the hell happened? Did CHrysler have sone nasty process problem?? Any recalls for this?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NewMan wrote:

In fact I remember seeing a link to a site that discussed secret warranties, and that ia in fact one of them. Anyone have that link?
There ought to be a special warranty on LH car a.c. evaporators.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Look up paint delamination....it wasnt just a Chrysler issue... GM didnt "recall" the cars, but we did what was called a tape test...2 inches of packing tape across the hood, and RIP.....if it came up, you got a repaint to the first set of trim moldings on the side. They ended that one too.

Secret warranties..LOL...aint NO such thing. There are however, GOODWILL REPAIRS, and SBs and dealers that can get a known common repair covered by the local rep...oh..thats a goodwill repair.

Why? Yours fail out of warranty and you had to spend some money?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CAVHBC wrote:

If you're implying that I'm one of those people that think that cars ought to be warranteed forever, I'm not. However, for something that will cost the owner *major* expense, and I say this as an engineer, engineering practice says that you make sure you design that area well into the bell curve. Can they be made to do a good will coverage as other auto makers often do to keep customers that deserve a little more than what they got? Absolutely not. Can I be forced to buy product from a company that takes major expenses of their customers so lightly? Absolutely not. It's called free market.
Truth is that a huge percentage of LH car evaporators fail after only a few years of normal use. There *is* such a thing as implied warranty of merchantability, and if it was pushed in the legal system, they'd lose the case on that one.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, actually, yea..you are sounding like someone that thinks that , (oh..wait..yer an engineer)..:)
As someone thats seen both ends of the market, and still sees the automotive end regularly now that I have gotten out of it for the most part..nothings wrong with the evaps on the LH line...altho I think many people have gotten that snow job line before..you know...charge to replace that evap, but instead spend 5 hours replacing every damn O-ring on the system, cause some engineer thought it would be good for business if they were all impossible to get to , and failed regularly.

Nope. Not at all. Actually, in practice, more evaps failed on another brand of vehicle. But you know, 3 years or 36,000 miles is the warranty, you bought it, you accepted it, and if it fails after that, its yours. Implied warranty of merchantability ok...that simply means that the car will run, and the AC will cool when you buy it...thats it..nothing more. Yea...take em on man...the legal definition of what you just stated is nohting but the fact that the cars gonna run...anything they add on after, you just get extra.
As an engineer, I know its hard to understand...but just because it looks good on paper....real worlds a bit different...and yes, I mean that the way it sounds.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CAVHBC wrote:

Sounding and being are two different things.

If anyone unbderstands real-world realities of good and bad designs, it's engineers.

...and I also fall into that category.
> ...and still sees the automotive

OK wise guy (and I mean that in the friendliest of ways) :) , as soon as the weather warms back up, when I charge my system back up and use the combination of electronic sniffer (just bought it) and dye (put in last summer), you're telling me that I should fully expect to find zero leaks in the evap., and instead should find leaks at one or more of the several o-ring'ed joints? If that's going to be the case, then this conversation will have been well worth it.
Tell me one thing: I could answer this myself by getting back into the diagrams and procedures (been a few weeks since I studied them), but you can save me the trouble - can I get to all of the o-rings without taking the dash out? (I can't recall if the evap. joints are on the engine or passenger compartment side of the firewall.)

And you totally missed my point about (legalities and reasonableness aside) - I can decide not to buy another of their vehicles for any reason - valid or not. Ask Ford and GM about that.

If I wasn't genuinely wanting your answer on the above question, I'd say something else - I'll wait until you give me a good answer, and then tell you (and even then, I just need to look at the FSM and other sources to figure it out - paper meets real world, eh). :)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aint that the truth...you guys design it, and then we get to tell you how bad it sucks....LOL

First of all, I REALLY hope you didnt get anything in the sniffer but a Inficon, or a CPS. Anything else, you can throw away. In an automotive enviroment, you are gonna want one you can actually trust, and those are the ONLY two, unless of course, you went for the 110VAC H1. Then....hats off to you...but Inficon or CPS...No Tiff or other rebreanded crap. And dye.....gads....that shit exists for only one reason...to eat o-rings...
kiddin
kiddin about the o-rings and dye....
but yea...I expect you will find you have no leaks at the evap. At least 90% of the ones I have seen have had no leaks at the evap...most are at the expansion valve, or compressor seals.

IIRC, yes.

LOL..depends...if you are an EE or an ME you can kindly GFU..LOL Sorry...i know there are a couple in here that HATE it when I do that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CAVHBC wrote:

Yep - I was coming back to post what a mental refresh from the FSM told me - a single flange joint on the engine side of the firewall - expansion valve-to-evap. Yay!! The difficult parts will be getting into the expansion valve/filter drier area, but I've had the cowling off before for windshield wiper, brake booster, and inner tie rod bushings before (more good design, eh?) - and the condensor connections - yeah - been partly in that area before to replace cooling fan motors - more poor engineering. But anything is better than having to pull the dash off to get to the evap. I was going to replace all o-rings and the filter/drier when I did the evap., but will forget doing the evap. unless I detect refrigerant coming thru the vents and/or see florescence out the condensate drain tube.

Hmmm - shouldn't that have been GFY? That's Ok - I understand if you can't spell too well. Actually I'm sort of both (ME - EE) and sort of neither. Degree is in Engineering Science and Mechanics (ESM) - kind of a blend of mechanical and materials science, and yet I am self-taught in electronics design, am licensed, and practiced as if a EE in medical, aerospace, and automotive for over 20 years even though my engineering degree is not EE.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read what I wrote again...there area a couple in here that hate it when I do that,.....do what? Oh...use a U when it shoudl be a Y... Roy...wannna step in and see if SF#2009 gets it? or maybe its just a BF45 that we got here....LOL
Calm down....the humor here is well...odd.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CAVHBC wrote:

So the chip on your shoulders about engineers and people with eduation in general is an act? I was beginning to think that Max Dodge had a new posting identity.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No new posting identity here. Although obviously you've come off as a desk driver again....
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, would you want to talk about "engineering' and "common sense" instead?
As in; Overdrive transmission ratios are not efficient in comparison to lower numerical final (axle) drive ratios combined with a direct (1:1) transmission ratio. (Look at Archimedes' principles on leverage for the clue.)
Or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is" mentality coming out of Detroit, Japan, Germany, Korea, ad nauseum. . . .namely, the A-604 transmission design.
It had potential, if . . .IF .. .they hadn't gone to an OD, if they had given sufficient line pressures, if they had given it another underdriven gear instead of the OD, if they had used a lower numerical drive axle ratio, made it less sensitive to fluid type, given it more cooling . . . .
Think on this, Bill, I get 26 MPG highway out of my 95 3.0 Lebaron GTC . . .not bad, not great. I squeezed 37 average MPG out of a 64 225 /6 (3 speed manual, 3.23 axle, water vapor injection) and I got 21 average MPG out of a 79 D-150 (318, auto, 3.55, recurved vacuum advance), so what happened with the GTC? By common sense, it should be getting near 45 MPG. IMHO, that consarned OD is sucking up the fuel.
--
Budd Cochran

John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

On the 300M Club forums, the accepted figure for the loss of power thru the 42LE tranny (the next generation from the A-406) is a whopping 33%!
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thats acceptable?
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

Uhh - to you maybe, but everyone else considers it atrocious (oh - sorry - that's a word that means 'bad'). Or are you just trying to play another shell game with words (morphing the word 'accepted' into 'acceptable')?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.