Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

Dodge has had a lot of transmission problems over the past decade, but I thought that most of them had been ironed out by 2002. Maybe not

The Caravan in particular was a problematic model because a lot of the smaller RE variant transmissions were used, and they just did not hold up well at all.

Some say that the use of nonconforming transmission fluid caused a lot of the problems. Special fluids are available and must be used.

In addition, Chrysler made a lot of changes to try to toughen up this series.

A little later they introduced the 545RFE transmission (in about 2000?). I haven't kept up with them but they were believed to be much more durable and reliable.

I wouldn't let the warranty expire before I got this solved. It could get expensive.

Considering the cost of a new transmission, I would insist on having the computer hooked up, even if I had to pay for it or go to another dealer. And I would want a printout or at least something in writing detailing the log.

Have you tried another dealer? I've learned that the one that sells the vehicle is not necessarily the one that will provide the best service, even during the warranty period (in AZ, Sanderson Ford - lousy. Sunset Ford - great). I would file a complaint with

and, if the dealer is AAA approved, with AAA (provides binding arbitration that has real teeth, binding only on the garage, not the customer, whether you're an AAA member or not).

Have you asked in some brand-specific forums, such as

or

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

Good to put some rough statistics to it. There have been many many complaints, especially about minivans.

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".

Direct their attention to Service Bulletin number 21-004-05, which describes your problem and the fix. If they replaced the front pump (part of this bulletin's instructions), I'm surprised they didn't connect to the powertrain module and read fault codes. Part of the repair is to verify that the controller is at the latest software revision level. If they really did as you say, it should be OK. Keep hounding them until they fix it. The bulletin specifically says this is covered under warranty.

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?

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 question is a complete nonsequitur. Are you still interested in the answer?

Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of shit, 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.

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.

Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission.

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

For example I would be extremely dissatisfied with a vehicle that had to have all 4 tires replaced every 4 years and each tire cost $500. I do not think it reasonable to pay $2000 for a set of tires every 4 years. However this is exactly what the people who drive around in trucks with giant-ass tires jacked up into God's ass do, and they apparently have a high level of satisfaction with their vehicle.

Those same people might be dissatisfied with a vehicle that has a transmission that breaks down every 4 years requiring a $2000 rebuild. I on the other hand might be perfectly fine with this if I was putting 20,000 miles a year on the vehicle, delivering pizza.

With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the truck-jacked-up-into-god's-ass would rate very high, the pizza car would rate very low. Even though both myself and the truck-jacked-up-into-gods-ass drivers would have an equally high level of satisfaction with our vehicles.

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. I hope that you aren't insulted that I spelled it out for you.

Ted

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?

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).

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.

Because the OP mentioned the transmission.

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.

CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability, why do you bring up satisfaction?

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.

You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public.

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

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

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

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

Quite true.

expectations

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.

"problem rate" of transmissions isn't about reliability?

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

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

Ted

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.

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

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.

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.

Thank you all for your replays.

Service Bulletin 21-004-05 relates to third and forth gear with the service light ON, so it is not applicable.

Will give the dealer another try tomorrow.

Thanks again

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.

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

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.