Saw the new '07 Sebring Thursday

Interesting stories, but I'm sure the dead battery was the result of
something electrical being left on during shipping or storage.

Twice I've rejected batteries on new cars I was buying.
In each case I noticed the battery was dead on my inspection before
signing the contract. I made a pen mark on the battery label, requested
a new battery only to find the car delivered with the same battery
charged up. I just add another (secret) mark and insist on a NEW one.

My pre signing inspection also caught a car with the wrong engine. Seems
the car docs listed the engine I wanted, but that wasn't the engine in
the car. To this day I wonder where I would have stood if I didn't
catch that before signing and taking delivery! <

 

I've got a '96 Mercury Mystique that Ford used the wrong insulation on
all the engine wiring harnesses - after a few years, the insulation
literally turns to dust, and the harness is bare wires all over the
place. They came out with a campaign that went to 100k miles to replace
the harnesses, but they didn't notify the owners (it wasn't a true
recall so they didn't *have* to). Mine's over 100k, and they won't
budge on the limit.

I think we as a society have painted ourselves into a corner with our
demands on car manufacturers. We want light weight, air conditioners
that last over the expected life of the vehicle without requiring a
$1000 repair, good fuel mileage, all kinds of so-called safety features
(some are actually useful, some not) that work over the life of the
vehicle without requiring astronomically costed repairs (ABS brakes,
a.c. evaporators, etc.), 0-60 in 6 seconds or less, low pollution (tons
of delicate technical gadgest all over the vehilce), able to accommodate
every home appliance and gadget you can think of, everything extremely
tightly integrated yet easy to work on, low initial cost, low
maintenance cost over a 200k mile span, plastics that last longer than
plastics can last, and with nothing that breaks after 6 years that costs
more than half the value or the car at that point (a.c. evaps and ABS
brakes). Plus the union agreements won't allow making existing
production more efficient if it eliminates a worker from the line
(specifically GM).

I submit that it would be impossible to meet all but 3 or 4 of those
requirements in any given car. Between our own personal expectaions and
government requirements, we've quaranteed ourselves that we will be
unhappy with our cars and the manufacturers - too many compromises have
to be made to mee them all - something has to give - and we pay for it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Then, howcome I have a 1985 Corolla GTS in the yard with 258,000 miles that
still starts on the first turn of the key, and just gave away an '85 Celica
in excellent running condition that still starts on the first turn of the
key, but my '92 Grand Voyager sounds like it's going to BLOW UP any minute
now, and it only has 127,000 miles on it?

Because:

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html

To start with, we motor room mechanics were a little disappointed when [the
engineer] came down with the first prototype parts for the 3.3. We were
expecting an overhead cam-high tech-high performance engine, and were
shocked when we pulled out a bag containing push rods!

Somebody had done a survey of potential customers and decided that the
customer was too dumb to know what was under the hood anyway, so the "cost
effective" approach was taken. Ford's Taurus engines and GM's 3.8 used
pushrods, so why not us?

We were paying a high premium for Mitsubishi's 3.0L V6, and Trenton Engine
had room for another assembly line, so it was a no brainer as far as the
necessity and where it would be built. We had some problems early on with
valve stem finish which was quickly fixed, a bigger problem was thrust
bearing failure. We were getting some engines coming in to tear down with
incredible end play, you didn't need a dial micrometer to know which ones
were bad. Our manager grabbed me and 3 other mechanics and we spent the next
2 days at Detroit Metro Airport checking crank end play on Snappy rental
cars with the 3.3 engine. Most were okay, but an occasional one would
produce not 3 or 4 or 5 thousandths end play, but 100+ ! The blame was aimed
at the transmission, but we immediately went to a wider thrust face. Has not
been a problem since. [Note that the 3.3 was produced for many years, and
these early problems affected only a relatively small number of engines.]

I had a real battle with an engineer in regards to the head bolt washers and
the ensuing CYI approach he took to, well, cover his behind. The 2.2 and 3.3
used the same head bolts and washers; a decision was made to widen the head
bolt washer to increase the clamping area. Only problem with this was that
on the 3.3, the wider washer could hit the valve spring that is next to the
oil feed cam tower. And they did.

[One engineer] told me that noisy tappet replacement was our fifth biggest
warranty item on the 3.3, but when they got the suspect parts back to
engineering, they weren't noisy. I fought to get a service bulletin written
on this, to check for interference before doing a costly cam/tappet
replacement, but another engineer [tried to cover up with] the claim that it
"helped attenuate" engine noise. On a visit to Trenton Engine, I found the
line worker who assembled the heads and asked him why he didn't notify
engineering about this. "I did, but was told not to worry about it," he
replied...

Another problem is oil leaks. Anytime you bolt aluminum to iron, the gasket
in between is compromised, due to the expansion differences between the two
metals. This is particularly evident in the chain case module gasket. The
gasket moves over time and creates a gap just above the oil pan rail, and
boy does it make a mess. Lower intake gaskets leak in the corners. An
upgraded gasket was designed with longer, tapered rubber ends that was
supposed to end the use of RTV, but RTV will always be a necessity on that
application.

Other notes
Jim Gathmann wrote: The early years of the 3.3 did have problems with the
rockers and the oiling system. I did not know when it was corrected...
Apparently they fixed this by the second year of production.

: The 3.5 had a rather interesting intake setup. There
were two separate intake manifolds for the left and right side cylinders
with their own throttle-bodies (interesting throttle linkage and cabling
there). So in a way it was like two in-line 3-cylinders that were joined at
the crank.

Dan Rose wrote: "I am a Dodge Dynasty owner who has one of the first 3.3
engines ever to come off the line. The pulleys on the (at least the early)
3.3 are made out of plastic, they break easily. The power steering pulley I
have replaced 4 times in the past 4 years."



Yup, American cars are the BEST, ok...

 

<snip great commentary>



Bill,

All excellent points. I think the strongest comment you made
was about the influence unions have on the American automobile.

(I'll preface this by saying that everything I say is IMHO and should
be taken as such).

Unions have outlived their usefulness. There was a time when unions
not only protected the factory worker but ensured that the auto
manufacturer played fair. Over the course of time, again IMHO, the
unions have moved away from "the big picture" and instead focused
on higher and higher benefits and salaries for their members.

In the end, the cost has to be passed on to the consumer. The more
expensive the car, the higher quality that's expected. I submit that
a large quantity of the American cars sitting in dealer lots should be
*at least* 25% less than what's being charged.

That way, the cost vs quality and level of expectation would be in
alignment.

And, as in everything, there's always exceptions to the rule

For example, I DO believe that Ford makes a great truck. I've owned
two (new) Explorers (a 91 Sport and an 03 XLT) and both trucks were
flawless..both in build quality, ride and reliability. The V8 in the
XLT was smooth, powerful and economical. The fit and finish were
excellent and if I were to buy another SUV someday, I wouldn't
hesitate for a second in buying another Explorer.

 

I think you need to call the "waaaaambulance"

 

...besides, anyone who is actually seriously looking at a Chrysler, let
alone a Sebring with it's horrible repair history and then thinks it's
comparable to a Japanese car like a Camry is stump stupid.

I, personally, will never, ever own a Chrysler product ever again.

 

Not if they're condemned to driving a Camry every day. Talk about cause
for heavy medication....

 

the new Camry's come in several different engine configurations.
Personally, it's not my kind of car either.

 

Good, because I don't believe you. Admittedly, an 80s Camaro is about
the WORST American car you can pick for build quality, but it would
still be better than the 79 Mazda POS that put me off Japanese cars forever.

Congratulations... it still has half the miles my '73 Plymouth Satellite
has. Let me know how IT looks when its 33 years old and has 460,000
miles (as if it will ever come CLOSE to either!).

 

Because real engines do make a little more noise than wound-up rubber
bands

 

...I'm not here to convince you of anything. Nor do I or anyone else
have to. Personally, I think MY recollection of the problems I had
with American cars is a hell of a lot more plausible than your claim
of their longevity and looks.

But hey, it's the Internet, you can say or be anything you want.
Somebody out there might actually believe you so knock yourself out.
;-)

 

That hasn't been our experience, with many Chryslers since '79, except
for the Chrysler NEW stick shift 4 Speed in an '81 Horizon., however
Chrysler replaced that transmission after 2 yrs with complete success.

In fact the reliability and performance of our Chryslers has been very
good, the problem I have is the type of cars they are now building don't
interest us.
Currently have a '95 Concord and '01 Sebring that run perfectly and have
had low maintenance costs.

 

Unfortunately, my experience with Chrysler products wasn't as bright.

I *do* think they have the best body styles. Their Charger's, 300's
and others are very nice looking cars. Then again, they have the PT
Cruiser..ugh.

 

wow... that averages out to a whopping 14k miles a year! i guess that IS
good for an american car!

 

heh... 1979 diplomat. within 6 years it needed...

new gas tank
new exhaust system
new brake system
new steering gearbox
new tranny

the only thing GOOD about the car was the 225 slant 6.

 

=====

Oh my, if you've been put off to Toyotas forever, you are missing
out on the best cars available. Try using your noodle.

Don't let the 79 Mazda experience deprive you of the best cars
you can buy.

 

=====

Oops, Steve (NOT SoCalMike) wrote that about being put off to Toyotas
forever because of the Mazda. Steve, use your noodle! [chuckle

 

When I was a kid, myself and a cousin were running thru my grnadmother's
house when she stopped us and told us we'd better stop running in the
house or we might fall and break our noodles. I was shocked, and yet a
little amused, that my otherwise prim and proper grandmother would use
such a crude expression. It was years later that I realized that
"noodle" meant "head".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Why? What makes your claims "plausible," other than the fact that you
said them? Nothing.

And you do...

 

...the fact that you claim to have American cars that have hundreds of
thousands of miles on them and look and run like new. THAT isn't
plausible. Can happen? Sure, but don't come off trying to make the
claim that ALL American cars do this. Because they don't. If you want
to ignore every single consumer review by just about every reputable
car review source on the planet. Go for it. It's doesn't make your
credibility any more plausible.

Actually, I'm just confusing you with facts. MY experience with
American cars not only goes back to '79, but spans several vehicles
as recent as 2003.

YOUR experience, by your own admission, is isolated to '79, Which,
again by your own admission is dated by 27 years. If your entire
argument hinges on information that's nearly 30 years old..well, I
think your credibility pretty much speaks for itself.

I'm not the one that's implausible here junior.