Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans 
1261 messages, Last post on Feb 27, 2008 at 7:47 AM
You are in the Vans & Minivans Forum. Your Host is Karens
|
Replying to: marine2 (Feb 25, 2008 9:25 am) I have documented the Dodge Truck assembly line worker I met late last year. The man fixes, you read that correctly, fixes, rear axle assemblies on the Ram pickup production line. The man claimed that due to production pressures he passes on potentially defective parts. I recently met a retired GM executive who said that early in his career he passed on defective parts. Today he drives an Acadia and says its quality is world class, something CR seems to agree with. My standard is my friend, the Chrysler dealer sales manager who bought an Odyssey for his wife because, as he said "I did not want her driving a Chrysler POC". He made that statement in 2007, not 1997. My son owns a 2008 Sienna XLE, a very well made, solid vehicle. My 2006 Odyssey EX-L has been a wonderful people mover. I have a brake issue covered by a TSB but it is more annoying than a safety issue. Would I buy American in the future? Perhaps but not a product of the Chrysler Corp.
|
|
|
Replying to: artgpo (Feb 26, 2008 5:45 am) "Overall, the entire company has benefited from the intensified focus on quality as Chrysler Group has seen nearly a 45-percent improvement in expense per vehicle (EPUS) from the 1998-2001 model years to the 2006 model year. In external metrics, the Chrysler Group brands continue to make dramatic year-over-year improvements. The 2007 Chrysler Sebring program and its dedicated engineers have made the vehicle another strong statement in the company’s goal of being among the best in quality." * Chrysler has posted a 15% improvement on first-time-through powertrain manufacturing capability, resulting in smoother, more efficient assembly processes. * Since 1992, Chrysler Group’s conditions per 100 vehicles have been reduced by 68 percent. * Chrysler Group's overall warranty expense has been reduced by approximately 50 percent since 1996. * At nine months in service, Chrysler Group's expense per unit sold (EPUS) has declined by 13-15% (2003 model year vs. 2002 model year), continuing Chrysler's double-digit improvements. The warranty cost reductions are largely through improved powertrains, intensified testing and laboratory validation, and increased durability testing. http://www.allpar.com/corporate/quality.html |
|
|
I had read several months ago that Chrysler is pushing to have their customers have their vehicles serviced at their dealerships. They said too many customers were having them serviced at places like Quick Lube and etc. They stressed that their products use certain lubricants in their transmissions, radiators, power steering units, and etc. that weren't being used by these service centers. It was causing quality problems. That might be the reason they send me discount coupons every few months to have my oil changed and etc. which I posted recently.
|
|
|
Replying to: marine2 (Feb 26, 2008 7:14 am) |
|
|
Replying to: marine2 (Feb 26, 2008 7:14 am) |
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Feb 25, 2008 1:46 pm) Which seemed fair at the time, given previous Tundras and the T100 had a consistently good reliability record. As soon as they got enough data to show the new Tundra has glass shafts and was not reliable, they down rated it and published a front page story on Toyota's woes. Same for the 6 speed auto in the Camry V6, another model that is now rated below average and was also mentioned in that front page, headline grabbing article. They even took a further step - for all new Toyota models they will wait until they have enough reliability data before they recommend them. That's a pretty big slap in the face. What bias? Note that the Sienna is not affected by either issue and is still recommended, data which agrees with findings from TrueDelta.com and SiennaForum as well. The problem here is the people criticizing CR don't read it, so they're not really qualified to make judgements about something they haven't read! |
|
|
Replying to: dennisctc (Feb 26, 2008 4:08 am) I have 2 issues with that argument. First off, Chrysler is losing money, so there is no profit. They're not putting profits back in to the american economy, in fact you may argue they're doing the opposite - creating a liability equal to those losses. Second, the profits would go to some filthy rich shareholders. If you're asking if I care whether Bill Ford, Jr. is worth 7 trillion dollars or 8 trillion dollars, the answer is no, I could care less. I read Iacocca's book. That year where he made his salary $1/year? He made millions in stock options. Maybe that's why today Chrysler has a $3000/car handicap over the newcomers. Perhaps Chrysler deserves a rebate for what it (over)paid all those executives over the years.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:07 am) You know this for a fact how? I've been getting CR for about 5 years, as a gift from my parents, it makes amusing reading. To say those that criticize, don't read it?? Whateva! Funny how CR can give the Tundra, which was totally redesigned a glowing review, when a domestic car, which was slightly redesigned and had an avg rating in previous year, can't get the same treatment etc... I'd call this bias!! Funny how you pick up an issue of CR and only see pics of Japanese cars on the cover or leads of articles? I'd call this bias!
|
|
|
Replying to: dennisctc (Feb 26, 2008 9:26 am) Remember, what started this conversation was an accusation that CR ignored the door weld problems on the Sienna, followed by the Ody's transmission woes. CR documents both of those issues. Why didn't you defend CR, if you knew that was inaccurate? More recently the Tundra recommendation was criticized - any reader/subscriber would have known the full story. Again, you were silent about that. Why? Did you not get this month's issue? Where the Caddy CTS whops up on BMW and Mercedes? Is that bias too? You subscribe, OK, I believe you, but do you really read it? Their last 2 Buying Guides had the Dodge Caliber and Saturn Outlook on the cover, both domestics. I'm going to borrow your line here: Whateva! 
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:07 am) They also pitted a Tundra with a 4.30 axle ratio against the Silverado with a 3.73 ratio, then gave the Tundra praise for having better acceleration. But the Silverado offers a 4.10 axle ratio as a no charge customer selection. Not only that, but they predicted that Toyota’s Tundra would have an above average frequency of repair rating. The Silverado? Too new to classify. The Toyota won the test. Surprise. It’s sorta like a boxing match were one of the competitors has his hands tied. In response to criticism of the “comparison” test, Consumer Reports has posted an explanation on its blog. It’s complete doublespeak, but you can judge for yourself: click here. Consumer Reports explanation boils down to saying that they selected trucks that used the powertrains most frequently purchased by consumers. Then, why do they call it a comparison test? As John Neff, who broke this story at Autoblog, notes, “Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they’re about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.” An equal comparison is not what Consumer Reports has done. Moreover, instead of admitting they used a flawed design for their testing, they’ve elected to defend their choices on the basis of a criterion utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the test. The test wasn’t biased merely in the vehicles selected. Giving the Tundra a predicted above average reliability rating while saying that the Silverado is to new to rate is plan ludicrous. The Tundra, as Neff points out, is an all new vehicle produced at a brand new plant. The engine Consumer Reports selected for its test is the one that breaks camshafts, seemingly at random. The Silverado is a new chassis and body, but the drivetrain in the truck is one that has been on the market for some time. And it is the Silverado that’s too new to rate? It’s the truck with the 20 engines, so far, that have had to be replaced because their camshafts broke shortly after delivery that gets the “above average” rating for reliability? Yup. That’s the way Consumer Reports did it. http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/consumer-reports-never-to-be-truted-ar4156- 9.html
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Toyota Sienna
2010 Honda Odyssey
2010 Chrysler Town and Country
2007 Dodge Caravan
2008 Hyundai Entourage
2009 Mazda MAZDA5
2009 Kia Sedona
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
