×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Chrysler Engineering reputation
4

Chrysler Engineering reputation

Chrysler Engineering reputation

(OP)
Years ago part of Chrysler's marketing, was it's engineering expertise. Is it deserved, either in the 1950's, or today? I had an uncle, would only buy THEIR products, and gushed about "Superior Engineering" at every family gathering. Can someone point to specific advances that would give them this cache'. Or, is there more "sizzle" then "steak" ? Mass produced the "hemi" engine, pretty good automatic transmission; anymore?? Seems like they had an electronic fuel injection system, predating Bosch, in the early '50's?  

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Like me, they used to be good.

Given any cataclysm that causes or allows a company to shed costs, modern managers always get rid of their most expensive, and most experienced, people.  

The unfortunate side effect is that 'the company' forgets much of what 'the company' actually knew... particularly the "dear school" stuff that nobody wrote down.

We are all reaping that harvest now...

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Chrysler has much lower technical capabilities than GM and Ford, not to mention BMW, Mercedes, VW, Honda...

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I recently interviewed several Chrysler engineers.  Didn't hire any of them.  They were unable to explain even the most basic of fundamental engineering concepts they were challenged with during the interview.  Things like force = pressure x area, or simple springs.

I don't know how representative of Chrysler's engineering gene pool they may or may not be.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Chrysler built some '58 300D's as well as a few DeSoto's & other miscellaneous models with the under developed Bendix Electro-Injector.  Nearly all of them were retrofitted with carbs by the dealers.  Not exactly one of Chrysler's finest engineering triumphs.  Bendix decided there was no future in the technology and sold the rights to Bosch.  The early Bosch electronic injection systems used the Bendix injector virtually unchanged.  The big improvement was in the control system.

http://chrysler300country.com/rise_and_fall_of_fuel_injection.htm

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I did a bit of consulting work at a big office of theirs in Detroit.  The engineers I interacted with were analysis types (dynamics and structures), and they all seemed pretty sharp.  
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

At some point the good engineers were replaced by stylists and accountants.  Of course without the dreadful "K-car" and its many varients, I doubt Chrysler would have survived the '80's.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Sounds like "piling on" to me.  I've owned a few, eleven to be exact, Chrysler products over the years...All pretty good cars and trucks.  I have four Dodge trucks and vans now and they are all good, no problems.  One has over 200,000 miles with only normal service! The 'high mileage' king in all the cars I have owned in the last 50+ years was my 1977 Dodge 360 Camper Special one ton pickup...it went 358,000 miles before my son finally traded it for a '94 Dodge/Cummins! It ate a transmission, but the engine was all original.

Also, one of the vintage racers in the club is an ex Chrysler Engineering type.  He left in the early 90's to start his own company. 'He ain't no dummy'!!!  
I've tried to get him to join the forum, "Too busy" says he.

Rod

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Rod--maybe he just had bad experiences with other forums where they heap abuse on those that actually know what they are talking about!

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

While it may not be as evident today, they were at one time on the cutting egde of auto design.  I've always admired the Airflow and the advanced engineering it represented for it's time.  If I'm not mistaken, they also were the first to isolate engine vibration, making for a much more comfortable ride.  Of course, this was a few years before my time...auto
I wonder if Lee actually did them a favor, bringing out the K car and making them financially solvent again.  Maybe it would have been better for them to die an honorable death instead of being remembered for those awful econoboxes.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Sorry about that, I guess I should have read that wiki article a little more closely...

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

While the K-cars turned out to be duds, the basic concepts of a common-unibody chassis wasn't really a bad idea, in of itself.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

It would seem the fate, looking back, of many smaller mfgr's to have their innovations capitalized on (stolen?) by the so called 'big three'.  A good example, among many, would be Studebaker.  Another would be Hudson. Still another would be  Packard. I can think of so many innovations over the years that were taken over by Ford or GM and made successful that simply failed to catch on with the relatively smaller companies.

Such is life.

Rod

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Not sure why anyone is vilifying the K-car.  When it came out, it was a cheap, reasonably built car, and a clean departure from the rest of the American herd.  Reliability suffered because of the cost-cutting and inadequate corporate resources, but to view them in hindsight and say they were garbage is not proper.  In my mind the worst thing about them was the continual extension of the platform designed for a 2400 lb car into ever-larger boats like the New Yawkers.  

It also ignores their variants like the Lebaron/Lancer GTS, with 2.2 turbo's and a halfway decent chassis.  Some Chryslers were first to use electroluminescent instrument panels, and the optional computer readouts for mileage etc were class-leading innovations.

I owned a '93 Eagle Vision TSi, with a wonderful 3.5L OHC engine and a super chassis for the size of car.  Compared to a Taurus or Celebrity or comparable foreign jobs, they were great cars IMO.  

That was then, this is now, and I don't see a lot of the innovative stuff coming from their corner.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

The K-car only looks particularly horrible in hindsight - and when compared to some imports at the time. If you look around at what else was out at the time from the big 3 ... GM's X-cars weren't any better (different set of problems, that's all) and the Ford Fairmont was dated - Tempo was two years away.

But, compare a K-car to a Honda Accord of the day - as long as you were okay with manual transmission. Hondamatics only had two speeds in that era. Having said that, I still see the occasional K-car out on the road, and I don't remember the last time I saw a first-gen Accord out on the road.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Perhaps I was hasty in my judgement of the K-cars.  I owned a 1985 LeBaron convertible with the GTS suspension package and 2.2 liter non-turbo.  Good handling (I scuffed up the tops of the letters GoodYear Vector on the front tires) before increasing the pressure 2 pounds above the pressures on the door placard and it was still a beast at 135,000 when I sold it.  But expanding the concept to the extra sized vans and big cars was a little much.   

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I meant dud as a consumer desire.  My mom had a turbocharged 2.2-liter Lancer, which could blow away my stock 2.2-liter Charger (Arrow)... bummer...

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Good running gear/powertrain. Bad bodies IMHO

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I had a very senior 6 cylinder Fairmont wagon for a few years. Although the infamous aluminum steering rack died right on schedule, I liked it's handling, size and layout a lot.  Not that Hank deuce planned it, but Shod with a serendipidous set of lowly all-seasons it was even startlingly good in snow.  An up-to-date version would make more sense to me, for me, than any SUV.

Just last month A cantankerous Chevy advocate acknowledged that by his eyewitness recollective account Mopar musclecars did not shuck their drivetrains nearly as often as Chevys under serious abuse.

To my eye they have had a few styling triumphs too.

Manufacturing engineering is engineering too.
Genius designs poorly assembled make few friends.

Speaking of poorly assembled, Justified or not, Ever know "labor" to intentionally slow things way down, or even foul things up intentionally?   

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

>>>Ever know "labor" to intentionally slow things way down, or even foul things up intentionally?   <<<

Yes, but there's always a backstory.

<tangent>, likely boring to most of you

The story:

Setting: An axle plant, where axles with cast center sections are/were assembled on a slowly moving conveyor with the pinion pointing down, and the center section gasket and cover put on last.

Someone on the line put in a formal suggestion that we cover the center sections while the line was shut down at night, to avoid contamination.

As the new, green, assistant manufacturing process engineer in training for that line, I had to provide a written response to the suggestion.

I conducted an investigation.  That part of the factory was then new, the ceiling was in good shape, and the place was kept at least as clean as our offices.  I asked the people in charge of warranty records; we weren't having a problem with contamination of any kind.

So I wrote a polite response, declining to implement the suggestion.  It was typed up (long time ago), reviewed, and sent out in snail mail.


A couple of days later, there was a panic in the morning because many of the axles under construction had been contaminated with floor sweepings, machining chips, dirt, and assorted junk, while the line was down overnight.  No one was mystified.

We knew exactly who should have been fired, but it was a union shop.  Lacking irrefutable evidence, and maybe even if we had had it, we couldn't do a damn thing about it.


The backstory:

There was a substantial financial incentive to at least submit suggestions.  The Company rewarded implemented  suggestions with something like one percent of the first year's savings, in cash.  That doesn't sound like much, but because of the production volume, a savings of a penny per car would net you enough of a reward to buy yourself one of those cars, brand new.  It had happened.  

One of the production managers got his ne'er-do-well son a summer job there, and sort of pushed through a suggestion on the kid's behalf.  It was not a bad idea.  It probably didn't save nearly as much money as was asserted, but it did help.  It may even have actually been the kid's idea, but I didn't think he was quite that bright.

What he was, was insufferable.

The kid bought a new car with his money, a flashy one, and drove it proudly, and bragged about how he got it, to anyone who would listen, and to all who were tired of hearing about how smart he thought he was.

True, the Company had actually rewarded actual valuable suggestions over the years, but not that many, and none were as technically trivial as The Kid's.  All two thousand people at that plant, except his Dad, hated or at least resented that brat.  



Of course, I didn't know the backstory when I catalyzed the events in the frontstory.  It would have been cheaper to give a token reward, and let them cover the axles until they got tired of doing it... just like the old timers in my office had advised me to do.  


Hey, I knew everything, and they were just ... old.  Now I'm old, and try real hard to give good advice, just like they did, to about the same effect.


Because of that experience, for a while I thought that all union shops were run like, and necessarily had the emotional atmosphere and petty politics of, high school, or maybe middle school.  Since then, I've found a few union shops where the employees were treated like, and behaved like, adults.  I'm told that factory's culture changed about ten years after I left.

If I learn just a little bit more, I'll know absolutely nothing.

</tangent>

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I have to say I am probably still alive because of Chrysler engineers. My 1967 GTX folded at exactly the points the engineers intended when it hit that tree at 50. Folded up even the trunk floor, took enough of the energy away so I only ended up with a twisted spine and a crushed cheekbone.
I don't know if it was by design or accident that the steering wheel was slightly right of what the typical GM and Ford cars were of the time, and that gave me room to not impale the wheel.

I gotta say though, my current experiences with Chrysler electrical stuff leaves me shuddering.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Chryslers, over the years, have had many technical innovations, and decent designs.  (I am a firm fan of the torsion bar front ends they had: good geometry and minimal unsprung weight for an excellent ride)

Unfortunately, they were usually bean-countered to death, so they were never as great as they COULD have been.


 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Some of the finest engineers I had the privelege of working with work(ed) at Chrysler.  Instead of subcontracting our the tough stuff, they do more with less $ than their competitors and before Daimler robbed them blind they had billions in the bank and enviable profitability per employee was only 2nd to toyota.
In the field of alternative energy they had several in house pioneers who deserve more credit for doing more with less than they got at the time.   

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

An engineer does not need to design something spectacular to be a good engineer.
He needs to design most fit or purpose best using the available resources. A crappy little car like a Gogomobile can be the result of good engineering if a Gogomobile iswhat is required.  

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Nobody has really mentioned it yet, but the automotive engineers in MI, USA tend to hop around "The Big Three".  This probably has good long term effects for both the OEMs and the employees, but it does make a single OEM's "reputation" a bit questionable and transient.

- Steve

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I have a perspective different from some, having worked at Chrysler when Engineering was in Highland Park, and when the Chrysler Institute still offered a graduate degree in Automotive Engineering.  
25% of the Institute graduates immediately left for Ford or GM...
I wasn't too impressed with MoPar quality even while I worked there,  and nothing I've seen since has inclined me to believe they're other than a third-rate outfit.

When I worked in Light Trucks at Ford, we never even tested Dodge trucks: we didn't consider them to be "competition" as the Chevrolet trucks were.

I also worked for an auto supplier company for some years,  and frequently met with Chrysler car engineers: echoing what Mint Julep said,  I often found it difficult to discuss technical topics with them - they just weren't equipped for it.
Sure, there are exceptions, and the '60s era cars at least had bullet-proof transmissions, but the cars and trucks they build today are sub-standard.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Rob, My 94 ram pickup I sold to a friend has over 300,000 miles on the original powertrain and has been the most reliable vehicle I ever bought.  Imperfect yes but damn reliable and inexpensive to maintain.  Pulling my 2003 chevy 6.0 to overhaul due to leaks everywhere that appeared when the cam had to be replaced at 50K.  I wish my ford excursion were as reliable, I liked its handling the best with a loaded trailer but after 3 tows to the dealer in the first year, one from 400 miles away..  Also had good luck with a Toyota under warranty  but then admittedly i abuse everything I drive.
I also worked for an OEM I worked with some good ones from every oem.  

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

turbo,  there's no doubt Chrysler has made a few good vehicles here and there,  and there are no doubt good engineers at Chrysler - here and there -  but on average,  Chrysler is a third-rate outfit,  with at best third-rate capabilities.
And they, not Ford, are lined up with their hands out in Wahsington...

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Thrid rate capabilities?  Rob, which Chrysler have you been visiting?

Bob Eaton raped the place and sold them down river to Daimler.  Daimler management bought a good company and put some good people out and promoted others as they saw fit.  There was no merger of equals.  Plenty of good engieers left or were thrown on their rears..  Not defending management but I will defend a lot of their engineers.  Lots of them move around to or from other oem's.  A lot of the work is also done by their vendors who also move around.  This thread has some comments that seem a bit myopic and insulting.  I know people from about 1/2 of the worlds automakers and they all have some wineers and losers.  All of them and Chrysler is no exception.

Honda has a great reputation but my 1982 civic had rusting a pillars when it was 1 year old.  By 3 years they were both rusting through.  Had a 01 toyota sequoia.. now that was a great machine but would intermittently turn off the a/c.  Dealer never fixed it and Toyota would not pay for the problem..  a partially melted wire harness pinched behind the dash..  Not ripping on their engineers but any brand has mfg issues but most of them are pretty good overall nowadays.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Rob,

I'm going to have to disagree with you.  I'd take a Dodge over a Ford Truck any day.  Working for an automotive supplier, I've had the opportunity to test both vehicles and interface with both Ford and Chrysler chassis engineers.  Quite frankly, I'm more impressed with the talent and resourcefulness at the Chrysler group.  Also, despite what you may think, the Ford engineers are very interested in the Dodge Truck product and do in fact have them in their vehicle fleets for benchmarking purposes. The '09/'10 LD and HD Ram's are terrific! Have you driven a Ford lately?  Instead of speaking in general terms why don't you point to some specifics to support your opinion?

As for Ford not needing government assistance, this is merely due to them mortgaging everything they owned when credit was more available.  I don't even think they own the pencils they write with at this point!  We'll see how they do when their 11 billion in loans become due next year.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Well, I am working at Chrysler now, and let me tell you, this is a completely new place now, that we went through the bankruptcy. The career paper pusher managers were asked to leave, and the engineers who didn't belong there were happy to take buyouts. The only guys who are left are those who are gearheads and who are dedicated to their craft. It's a much more pleasant place to work now too. Fewer people, more work, but we now work with better people, those who really care about what they do.

The new Dodge trucks are pretty good. You can give me some thanks for the ride and handling. If you look at the recent truck sales, despite the overall downturn in the the truck marker, the Dodge Ram trucks are doing better than anyone else in the industry:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/july-2009-top-10-truck-sales.html

You guys forgot to give Chrysler a credit for the Minivan and the Jeep.

The evil Germans ransacked the company before they left. Then the Cerberus dogs came and munched on the leftovers. The new Fiat guys seem to be much better, letting us run the regular business the best way we know now to. If the general economy picks up we will fair okay, and will keep making our current products better and bringing in some new ones.
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

COrnholio, your timing may prove quite good.  I believe Xler will emerge a healthy and lean competitor in the coming decade.  As harsh a critic as I am of Nardelli due to his culture kiling actions at Home Depot I think he made some good moved sending dead wood out the door this time.

IMO, Fiat married up and the venture will improve them.  Fiat's were the worlds worst crap decades ago but they made massive improvements in the last decade.  Most Americans don't travcel in automotive circles so they find out much later that you will.

Regards, Turbo Cohen

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I own several early 1960's Chrysler automobiles. Several years ago, not long after buying my first one, a 1963 Imperial, I was adjusting the windshield wiper arm. I've had many old cars in the past and this simple task can turn into a nightmare because the splined shaft is usually a cast zinc/white metal and they can corrode and expand making removal difficult and/or impossible. When I went to remove the retaining nut on the Imperial's wiper arm the nut would not come out all the way. Instead, as I kept turning, it began to act as a built in puller because the nut was captive in the arm. The arm came off with ease. I also saw that the splined shaft was tapered which facilitated the successful removal process. From an engineering standpoint this simple detail left a positive impression on me from that point on.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Oh, I almost forgot.... Imperial's motto in 1963... America's Most Carefully Built Automobile.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Wasn't the imperial the only car banned from smashup derby's?  They were so damn brute strong solid they would always win.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

What I remember, going back to my days in high school, interest in drag racing, and general interest in cars which led me to study ME in college .....

Most of us considered it the macho thing to drive and own stickshift cars, but the Chrysler Torqueflite automatic trans was considered right up there, and ahead of anything from Ford or GM.  It was used heavily in Chrysler-based competition drag machines.  The Chrysler "Ramcharger" manifold was also well known in the competition set, with both wedge chamber and the second-gen hemi engine in the late 60's.  Their earlier hemi came out in 1953 - my dad had one - and it was known for being one of the most powerful V8s of its type then, and had lots more growth room than other wedge engines for dragging.

I can't tell you exactly what happened over the years, except that Chrysler and the others got out of sync with the changes in the market and had a hard time shifting to new buying paradigms.

I like the Viper, but even the first one out lacked roll-up side windows, a feature the little Mazda Miata has never been without.  Eventually Chrysler changed the design.  Today, strictly from a gut level, I feel that most of their cars are still out of sync with the marketplace and that they lack the agility to fully recover.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Maybe designing parts that were ideal for drag racing is not what production car companies needed to be doing then, or even now?

Of course that is a statement of the obvious. There are plenty of amateurs who have designed succesful racing cars, not many have designed succesful production cars in the last 30 years.


 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Just my observation....
Many (if not most)of the better engineers are not particularly "brand loyal", but rather $$$$$$ oriented.  I know of several engineers that have worked for ALL the Big Three and are now in second or third tier companies.  Pretty much like the car salesmen in many respects.  They usually praise the good points of their current employer...Unless you are independently wealthy and don't really need the job!

Just call me Mr. Cynic ...

Rod

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

quite right money talks.

Its sad when you have to look to the 60's for a companies 'best' times

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

thruthefence,

I know nothing of Chrysler engineering resources in place today.  But, as a young engineer for an automotive supplier, I had the opportunity to work with guys like Pete Hagenbuch, Kim Lyon, Dick Winkles, Pete Gladysz, and others.  These Chrysler engine guys were an extremely bright and curious bunch.  No aspect of engine performance engineering escaped their scrutiny.

I especially enjoyed talking with Kim Lyon (engine controls engineer) about the time he spent in Italy developing engine controls for the Lambo F1 effort, and with Pete Hagenbuch about the Richard Petty era engine development.

http://www.allpar.com/corporate/bios/hagenbuch-interview.html

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Quote:

Can't say this car is indicative of better engineering or not but I think it's very cool.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I guess that is why there are so many choices because there are so many varied beholders.

Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, they also were the first to isolate engine vibration
Ewh,  You are not mistaken but maybe that is what you meant by your followup post about reading the wiki article more closely.

Quote:

Nobody has really mentioned it yet, but the automotive engineers in MI, USA tend to hop around "The Big Three".  This probably has good long term effects for both the OEMs and the employees, but it does make a single OEM's "reputation" a bit questionable and transient.  
Several have mentioned similar things about mobility of engineering expertise within the automitive community  since that post.  I think it is a fantasy to think that any particular auto manufacturer has superior design engineering, manufacturing engineering, production employees, management, bean counters,etc.  They all have made contributions to the industry, all have made lemons, etc, etc.  It is a living thing, dynamic so that you must take each vehicle year and model and compare it's attributes.  For example;  IRstuff said "... but 60 yrs ago..."  Yes there was a lot of innovation going at that time by that particular auto mfgr.  Reo came out with the first electric starter in 1913.  "Ford had a better idea" was that when they came out with symmetrical key?  Sorry -- that is not very engineering intensive but you get the idea and we could go on and on.
Not only does America have a love affair with the automobile.  Some people have a love affair with an automobile company and that's OK!  At least it shows some loyalty.  Like how can any one be loyal to a baseball team called the LA Dodgers.  Did it not used to be the Brooklyn Dodgers.  This goes WAY over my head but then I am WAY off track already..........

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Well, I've had pretty fair luck with most of the cars I've owned. But I certainly know folks who haven't.
I've spoken to a transmission shop owner and a Dodge minivan owner, and neither of them had anything good to say about the transmission in those. Is there a way to get actual stats of repair interval for those versus other automatics ?

Jay Maechtlen
http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Picked up a Nissan Cube for the SO a few months back.  It has a continuously variable transmission (CVT) that takes some getting used to... weird to see the car speeding up and the tach sitting in one place.  Since it is a fairly new technology in a passenger car, there has been a lot of discussion among the owners about the reliability, to the point that i think sales were starting to drop.  Nissan, with no request or complaint from me, sent a letter telling all Cube owners that they believed so strongly in the quality of the technology they were increasing the drivetrain warranty to 10 years.

That speaks volumes to me...

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I remember when a Korean mfgr came out with a 100,000 mile or ten year powertrain warranty....That was just about the only thing in those cars that lasted that long...

Rod  winky smile

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Hyundai? When they introduced the 10 year warranty is also (coincidentally?) when their sales took off, and they have also improved substantially in the JD Powers and CU surveys.

It was a high risk gamble though, I agree. I wonder if they just took out a lot of insurance, or whether they were so confident in their quality roadmap (Bzzt jargon alert) that they could do that?

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Interesting point on the automotive warranty issue Greg.  I was told by a tier 1 customer of mine that GM is now going to mandate that warranty costs of sub-components are going to be shouldered by the sub-component supplier (those who agree to that deal I guess).  Any truth of this being a widespread phenom or just related to GM?

  

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

tripleZ,
It would seem logical that the Automobile OEM would revert to the sub-component supplier to recoup losses from warranty issues which is likely what they have always done.  In this mandate, is GM having the car owner take recourse directly to the sub-component supplier?

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

All depends on the contracts. In the past most suppliers were fairly reluctant to get involved in warranty costs, for obvious reasons. They are difficult to enforce - if the supplier is also the technical resource then if he says it ain't broke then without spending a lot of money then you have to take his word for it. They do this on a case by case basis, so it is just too expensive and time consuming to chase up.



 

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I always find the Chrysler minivan transmission debacle ironic.  From everything I heard at the time, the UltraDrives were largely japanese-made in initial production, with production later shifted to the US.  Just as with the awful Mitsu 2.6L "jet" 4-bangers and Mitsu 3.0 V6's Chrysler used, that sounded like typewriters and/or smoked like mosquito foggers, Chrysler takes the hit for their failures and pissed-off consumers run over to the import side... who were responsible to some degree.

I would find it amusing, too, except that I got burned on an UltraDrive minivan to the tune of $1800, 5k miles over the warranty.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Ross, you could have beat that 5k over warranty deal with Chrysler.  I have had AWA (after warranty adjustment) on my  '95 Chrysler LHS when all the core plugs started leaking well after the warranty on the power train had expired.  
On my '01 Lincoln I've had two AWA's, one for rear wheel bearings at 65k and one for the AC switch that controls the cabin distribution (about the same time).
It is not always easy to make something like this work, it may require legal help, but it can often be an aid to the consumer.

Rod

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Well, Rod, I tried explaining that to my ex after she wrote the check... it did not help matters, believe me.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I had a similar discussion with Toyota after the third speed sensor failed in 3.5 years (ie 6 months out of warranty) in my SOs 2004 Rav4 POS.

Discussion with wife in front of service manager giving us a A$700 quote to fix it again.

Me to SM
As this was replaced about a year ago it should have original 3 year warranty from time of repair.

SM
Replacement parts only have 12 months or to expiry of original warranty whichever is the later.

Me to SO
Why did you buy a Toyota.

SO
Because I thought they are 100% reliable and never have recurring problems.

SM
Toyota's do not have recuring problems.

Me to SM
Well 3 times in 3.5 years sounds like a recuring problem to me.

SM
Well maybe this particular car has a recuring problem.

Me to SM
It certainly is an expensive recurring problem. Can you explain we can fix it permanantly.

SM
Not really, I will talk to the shop foreman about the details.

Me to SO as the SM was about to leave
Do you think you will ever buy another Toyota.

SM after return from workshop
Does your car have a sun roof (Moon roof to some).

Me
Yes

SM
They are locally fitted by subcontractors and the drain directs water to the speed sensor.

Me
So you just blow them off with compressed air and try to charge us $700 every time.

SM
We would never do something like that.

Me
Well why not just put a cover over it or deflect the drain to the side or rear.

SM
Turned and walked away without answer.

SO to me
I never saw you be so rude to someone before.

Me
Well you never saw me dealing with a lying crook who tried to treat me like an idiot before.

Inspection by me actually revealed, that being EW mounted normally front wheel drive layout, the speed sensor was actually on top of the gearbox, fairly high up in front of the firewall and nowhere near any drains.

AS made in Japan, rainwater would normally enter via the radiator grill and radiator and wet the speed sensor area.

A dealer fitted after market cruise control unit had been fitted when new before delivery. The sub contractor who fitted it spliced a wire to the speed control unit in such a way that water shorted it out. It appeared the speed control unit had never been removed.

Bottom line, Toyota almost got a real bad reputation because of poor quality work and dishonesty by the dealer.

A well placed dab of silicone rubber fixed the problem permanently at a cost so low it cannot be calculated.

AS I do not think many people would have the knowledge or the front to take my approach to this, I wonder how many other owners of Rav4s with cruise control think Toyotas have this recurring problem and therefore their engineers were at fault on this issue.

It seems evident that stylist over ruled engineers on the Rav4 design in other areas and there are design problems as a consequence, but that is another story.   


 

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

(OP)
I think the word "sub contractor" lends a bit of 'cache' to the folks who actually did your work on the cruise control.

I bet the "sub contractor was a local audio/trim/window tinting shop, with some pimply faced High school drop out-handling the "installation".

There's a few dealers around here that take exactly that route.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Don't get me started on aftermarket alarm and stereo installers......I suspect the same crowd did the RAV4 cruise control.

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Spare a thought for OEM Harley engineers.  How many OE Harley exhausts ever wear out?  Imagine the kudos from designing one.

- Steve

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

That could be because most owners toss them within the first 10 miles?

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Explaining the joke ... bad form.

- Steve

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Sorry, wasn't clear to me that you were joking winky smile

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Ah, septics not understanding my jokes, makes me proud to be British.

I had a Chrysler once.  Worst POS I have ever owned (all I could afford at the time).  In some ways I was glad when my left turn was intercepted by a Dodge running through the red light.  Two crap Chrysler cars killed with one stone.

- Steve

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

SG - I had rather better experience with a '64 Dodge that was first my Dad's, then my Mom's when he bought another one, mine for a little over a year when I got married and moved out of the house, and my wife's for about a year after that.

Decent enough car overall, but it still wasn't enough to keep me brand-loyal to the pentastar, as I have not owned one since selling it.

On the other hand, my Dad has never owned anything except Dodges for the family's primary transportation since '58.  He's currently driving a Neon.


Norm

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

Greg:

Not too sure of the details yet.  The way it was explained to me, it doesn't quite make total sense.  If a component fails then the component supplier is responsible for warranty replacement cost.  So rather than the cost of the component, they would also have to cover replacement cost, documentation cost, etc.  That isn't cheap.  Where it's fuzzy to me is where it's an interactive component and not a standalone failure.  For example, an axle tube may crack but was it from improper use/loading or from a faulty axle tube?  Microstructural analysis will show some of that, but at the cost of such who is going to go into that detail.  For onesy-twosies, maybe.  But at hundreds of dollars per analysis to justify not paying, that has the potential to be a lot of $$$.  I'm guessing the component supplier will accept the hit, pay the $, and jump up the margin to cover an expected # of service failures (meaning a more expensive car, right?).  Just curious if anyone from the OEM side knows the full details as I don't know that I'm getting the entire picture.    

RE: Chrysler Engineering reputation

I suggest you reread my post as you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Getting suppliers to stump up for broken parts is very hard work for the OEM and usually doesn't happen.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources