Should read "Ford knew of the problems with the Pinto and the Explorer/Firestone issues"
Keeping Chrysler Caravan Transmision Reliable.....
- Thread starter Idrinkmotoroil
- Start date
- Status
Gary,
I agree with you that manufacturers should not use the general public to field test their transmission designs. It seems pretty clear in this example, DCX did that with the 41TE/A604 transaxle.
However, the purpose of my original point was to illustrate both that the design of the transaxle was ground breaking and DCX has made significant progress in improving the reliability and durability of their transaxle.
Now, I know the guts or operation of a car's mechanical parts may or may not be important to the general car buying public, but customer demand for more refined shift feel, fuel economy and performance drives the need for such large design changes. Such big leaps in design unfortunately result in some mistakes and cause severe durability troubles. This is where IMHO the manufacturer should have found these flaws and made the needed changes BEFORE releasing the product out to production. So, i think the question becomes why does the manufacturer release poorly tested production units in the field?
My speculation is its all about COST. I don't deal with parts production, but i can imagine that if there was a design flaw or significant problem with an area, if say 4,000,000 units of affected parts were produced, some serious risk/failure calculations are produced. Management compares whether it costs more to allow the calculated % to fail in the field or to retool and put in place the fix before production. But again, I don't deal in this area and this common sense speculation could be flawed or over simplified.
The old 3speed automatics you mentioned as being lifetime transmissions is a little bit fiction. People drive significantly MORE miles nowadays and the manufacturers insist of operating engines and engine compartments at higher and higher temps. Before there was enough space around units to aid air cooling assemblies. Look under some vehicles' hoods and you might not even be able to see the transaxle/transmission.
All these units also went through significant growing pains to get to of decent reliability, it's just a matter of when you look. Most of these units had a extremely LONG production cycle and many changes were made to improve reliability. I think most 3 speeds nowadays fail because of maintenance issues like running low on fluids because of numerous leaks EVERYWHERE.
To conclude, the modern automatic used in vehicles nowadays, is THE MOST complex assembly in the vehicle. Engines, no matter how many devices and additional controls they add on, still are significantly less complex and really haven't changed a whole lot hence the failure rate is lower.
But if you want to save money and worry less about transmission troubles, go find those old 3 speed automatic equipped vehicles and rest easy or get a manual equipped vehicle and have some fun.
I stick to manual transmissions on my own vehicles because i don't want the headaches and like the control.
Good discussion.
DH
I agree with you that manufacturers should not use the general public to field test their transmission designs. It seems pretty clear in this example, DCX did that with the 41TE/A604 transaxle.
However, the purpose of my original point was to illustrate both that the design of the transaxle was ground breaking and DCX has made significant progress in improving the reliability and durability of their transaxle.
Now, I know the guts or operation of a car's mechanical parts may or may not be important to the general car buying public, but customer demand for more refined shift feel, fuel economy and performance drives the need for such large design changes. Such big leaps in design unfortunately result in some mistakes and cause severe durability troubles. This is where IMHO the manufacturer should have found these flaws and made the needed changes BEFORE releasing the product out to production. So, i think the question becomes why does the manufacturer release poorly tested production units in the field?
My speculation is its all about COST. I don't deal with parts production, but i can imagine that if there was a design flaw or significant problem with an area, if say 4,000,000 units of affected parts were produced, some serious risk/failure calculations are produced. Management compares whether it costs more to allow the calculated % to fail in the field or to retool and put in place the fix before production. But again, I don't deal in this area and this common sense speculation could be flawed or over simplified.
The old 3speed automatics you mentioned as being lifetime transmissions is a little bit fiction. People drive significantly MORE miles nowadays and the manufacturers insist of operating engines and engine compartments at higher and higher temps. Before there was enough space around units to aid air cooling assemblies. Look under some vehicles' hoods and you might not even be able to see the transaxle/transmission.
All these units also went through significant growing pains to get to of decent reliability, it's just a matter of when you look. Most of these units had a extremely LONG production cycle and many changes were made to improve reliability. I think most 3 speeds nowadays fail because of maintenance issues like running low on fluids because of numerous leaks EVERYWHERE.
To conclude, the modern automatic used in vehicles nowadays, is THE MOST complex assembly in the vehicle. Engines, no matter how many devices and additional controls they add on, still are significantly less complex and really haven't changed a whole lot hence the failure rate is lower.
But if you want to save money and worry less about transmission troubles, go find those old 3 speed automatic equipped vehicles and rest easy or get a manual equipped vehicle and have some fun.
I stick to manual transmissions on my own vehicles because i don't want the headaches and like the control.
Good discussion.
DH
- Status
Similar threads
