If it were just the main gear clutches at issue, then what you say might
be true. However, those transmissions modulate the torque-convertor
lockup clutch and spend a fair amount of time with it in a partial-slip
mode (in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gears, with 100% lock only occurring in 3rd
and 4th). Its the torque convertor clutch and operating it in partial
lock mode that demands special fluid characteristics.
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
what the actual maintainence history.
For example I would be extremely dissatisfied with a vehicle that had to
all 4 tires replaced every 4 years and each tire cost $500. I do not think
reasonable to pay $2000 for a set of tires every 4 years. However this is
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
Those same people might be dissatisfied with a vehicle that has a
that breaks down every 4 years requiring a $2000 rebuild. I on the other
might be perfectly fine with this if I was putting 20,000 miles a year on
vehicle, delivering pizza.
With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the
would rate very high, the pizza car would rate very low. Even though both
and the truck-jacked-up-into-gods-ass drivers would have an equally high
of satisfaction with our vehicles.
This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's
to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself. I hope that you
insulted that I spelled it out for you.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Why then don't you tell us what Daniel's objections to the CR reliability
are, since you know them so much better than I do, and why his objections
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
Quite correct. The laughability of the Consumer Reports chart is that it
shows apparently-big differences in transmission reliability between
Chrysler minivans of different model years *that use transmission systems
identical in every respect*. There are only two plausible explanations:
1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are
insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than
average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average"
categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless
and therefore meaningless overall, or
2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random
Or, (3), both of the above.
Couldn't manufacturing problems also cause big differences in
If you look at CR's reliability charts for vehicles that differ only in
name, like a Chrysler Voyager vs. Dodge Caravan, you'll rarely find no
more than a one-rank difference, i.e. the engine of one may be rated
much better than average but merely better than average for the other
vehicle. It seems that when the differences are greater, then the
vehicles or their parts came from different factories.
What about the possibility of defects in manufacture?
Consumer Reports reliability reports are based upon its subscriber base
which submit reliability information once a year.
I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. The
reports for Chrysler transmissions show that they were a real problem back
in the early to mid 90's and that they have significantly improved ever
The best source for reliability data would be the much larger sample
Chrysler has based upon warranty work; but Chrysler keeps that data close to
Consumer Reports did find that US made short wheel base models had different
reliability issues than long wheel base Canadian built mini-vans. This
turned out to be quite accurate. 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.
Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different
properties then Dextron. If you have Dextron in your car (why? I don't
know). It will provide enough efficiency in moving your car to a repair
facility if you are out of or low in fluid. BUT IT Must be drained. If not
it will cause Harsh shifting and chatter, as the Fluid co-efficeny is
different then the specs of ATF+
But are you trying to say, that tranny fluid protects from "breakdowns" of
gears that are flawed, tranny cases leaking, and external damage. After-all
they all can cause a breakdown! Let alone the sensors that short out causing
limp-mode "breakdowns" If you want to know what specific breakdowns mention
them! Oh, I guess an alternator failing, causing a "breakdown" is due to
fluid too! Lets also mention Fluid "Breakdown" caused by heating and cooling
and wearing of the components.
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.