Re: American vs German Quality

While Chrysler has changed the computers so they aren't programmed to eat the transmissions, and done some other improvements, they still aren't quite

100% of what they should be. Same with Ford, early AXODs were absolute disasters, but they improved somewhat in 1996, and even more in 2000. Again, not 100%, but better then they were.

Also Chrysler had it's fair share of not supporting owners with known faulty

2.0L and 2.4L head gaskets.

And if you look at the last SIXTY years, Chrysler has been even better. The only real problem periods in that whole time in additioni to the transmission and Neon you mentioned were:

-Rust and QA problems on the '58-60 vehicles

-Rust and QA (again) on the '77-80 vehicles

And in both of those cases, the cars that survived (were at the high end of the QA curve) proved that the basic engineering was excellent even then- just a lot of the cars were VERY poorly put together.

During that whole time, Chrysler has NEVER had a widespread recurring engine flaw in a Chrysler-designed engine (the Mitsubishis were crap) until the 2.0L head gasket problem with the first-gen Neon. That in itself is very remarkable when you compare Chrysler to GM (Olds diesel, Cadillac HT-4100 and V8-6-4, Chevy 60-degree v6 failures, the odd-firing Buick 3.8 fiasco, engine replacements due to piston slap in the current Chevy GEN-III v8s), Ford (early and often failures in the Modular V8 series with numerous recalls and warranty replacements, including piston slap, head failure, and high oil consumption), BMW (say 'Nikasil' and watch the BMW fans scream in agony), and most other brands.

No modern automatic transmission is 100% of what I think a transmission should be. But then my gold standards are the Chrysler A-727 and the Ford C6, and nothing made today comes even close. Even the GM TH-400, which I admit was a good transmission, wasn't up to 727 and C6 standards.

Weak transmissions have been virtually mandated by CAFE and emissions requirements. In order to make transmissions efficient enough to meet cafe and not increase emissions, makers have had to take all the safety margin out of the hardware to reduce weight and frictional losses, and then protect what is left of the transmission by doing annoying things like closing the throttle, retarding timing, or dropping alternate cylinders during shifts to reduce the power dissipated in the clutches, running heavily friction-modified fluids, and plain old praying for longevity. Modern GM front-drives AUDIBLY throttle down during shifts, and it just makes me want to scream every time I get one as a rental car!

The 42LE is every bit as good as ANY of its competitors from any continent or manufacturer.... the problem is that NONE of them are good ENOUGH.

Well, *there's* a ringing endorsement!

Yep, you can rely on the modular V8 engines to eat intake manifolds and cylinder heads, in addition to the rotating-electrics problems most all Fords have.

Sorry that just doesn't quite line up with reality. The engines might start to smoke after 350 000km, but other than the car is very reliable.

2000+ Taurus does that, but it probably helps with the transmission reliability.

If you're talking about the various incarnations of the 4.6 (single and dual overhead cam), that hasn't been my experience at all. From what source have you drawn this conclusion?

Cheers,

Yeah - what he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ford spent a lot of time on the Edsel.....................and many other vehicles during their long history, but it really hasn't done much good. As for Chrysler garbage, you really DON'T know much about Chrysler, do you????????????

What a surprise. You come into a Chrysler group to brag about Fords and bash Chrysler so the assumtion is.............. (yes, I know I shouldn't ASSuME but in this case I am the "ME"!).

and continued:

You don't?

I'm not bragging about Fords, I'm just saying Chrysler isn't vastly (if at all) superior.

Your reality is not the reality of the fleet managers -- several of them, over the years -- I've spoken with. What's your sample size, there, Bill? One? Two?

That's entirely probable. How many of them have you owned, and for how long?

Funny, it sounded like bragging - and many people here will disagree on your statement that Chrysler isn't superior.

I haven't owned a single one, but I have customers (maybe 20-30) that own those engines in various cars. The last Ford V8 I owned was a fox body Mustang 5.0L, which was a completely different engine.

Cheers,

Grand. Go talk to motor pool maintenance managers who have to keep hundreds of them on the road.

The Stuttgart designed, Kokomo built 5-speed automaticac used in the 300C is what is now a mainstream transmission. The Kokomo management and union workers just need to have an attitude adjustment and get the quality in line on what is basically a good design. It's design is not too complicated for it's own good. 5-speeds are now what 3-speeds were in the late 50's.

Why don't you have these people tell us what they think or post a citation to a credible source?

Thanks,

The whole thread has degenerated into "my brand is perfect and all others suck" Totally meaningless.

To put it somewhat back where I started. After looking at it (500) on the lot (no intentions of buying, just curious) I check the net. A few reviews were all I did but the consensus was that they will be found in the rental fleets and that's about it. My current 2001 Taurus is my 4th sequential ford product (3 fords, 1 sable) and have had no problems with any of them. Why ford? Only because of the dealer. I'd be just as happy driving GM or Chrysler.

Harry K