Why would you be replacing trannies

Hey, sh*t happens, and I can accept that. Like I said, it was replaced under
warantee... no problem.

The ignition was replaced with a vacuum advance, 'cause that kit was $150,
and the new module was $250. I didn't have the extra money to spend, and I
did the work myself.

Lemons, my a**

--Mike

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:23 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

You want a review of the Ram... ok.

My 1st in 1984 (1/2 ton, 2wd) went 130,000 with nothing other than an
electronic ignition module that went bad at about 50,000. I replaced it
with
a standard vacuum advance, and it was good 'till I traded it on a 1990
(3/4
ton, 4wd). The 1990 had the tranny go south at 60,000 but was replaced
under
warantee, and was problem free till I traded it on a '95 at about 100k.
The
'95 (3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab) was absolutely problem free until I
traded
it on my current Dodge... an '03. The '95 had about 150k on it at the
time.
So far, the '03 (3/4 ton, 4wd, crew cab, hemi) has not had a single
problem
other than normal stuff (brakes, tune-up, etc) as with the other trucks.
I've only got about 50k on it right now. Until Dodge gives me a reason to
go
elsewhere, it's the truck for me.

--Mike


To someone who owns Toyotas, the above sounds like a series of lemons. Why
would
you be replacing trannies and ignition systems at 50-60k? And why was the
original ignition system not replaced with the same thing as the original?
Did
someone tell you it would probably fail again?

I owned a 64 Dodge Dart convertible with a slant 6 that was pretty good. I
think
it must have been a very different company back then.

On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:01:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Chevy Silverado v. Toyota Tundra v. Ford F-150

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG...%2F%2Fwww%2Emo...

http://tinyurl.com/24exwz

FORD RULES!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

Anybody with a socket wrench and five minutes could easily reverse the outcome
of that dummied up test.

When Ford's start regularly going 200,000+ miles without anything besides minor
routine maintenance, please let me know. That is NOT their present reputation.

What exactly does pickup box bounce indicate, anyway? Maybe Ford needs to do
some homework. It may be an advantage for the mighty oak tree to sway in the
wind, rather than standing firm and breaking. Most competent engineers know
that.

Your way off on that one. Ford's trucks are well known for being able
to take a beating, always have been. And lasting longer than anyone
else. Try beating the Toyota the same way, and you will end up getting
to know their service manager on a first name basis. Take a look
around, if the Toyota is so good, why are their none in any large
fleets that see heavy use? The fleet buyers know what Consumer Reports
doesn't. Their concerned about service life, value and cost of
ownership, their not concerned about resale values that are based on
someone's preception, they have to live in the real world, their jobs
depend on it. The Toyota's just fine for a home owner's trips to Home
Depot, or the guy that never hauls anything, but if it's going to get
abused on a regular basis, it'll end up a very expensive low milage
junker.

My last Ford van I bought about 15 years ago, it was a fleet van, my
brother in law was the fleet director, it had over 150,000 miles on it
(odomiter didn't work), it was about 7 or 8 years old. We did
everything with it, hauled boats, fish, a load of copper, building
materials, you name it, it did it. We didn't pay much for it, I
figured I'd just drive it into the ground. I changed the oil once,
never tuned it, rarely added oil to it. Ran that thing for 10 years,
the body had real bad rust (probably from hoseing it out after hauling
fish), God only knows how many miles it had on it, it just refused to
die. I finally junked it when the rust got so bad you had to watch
where you walked in the back. Motor ran fine, transmission was perfect
when I turned it in. The junk yard guy told me their wasn't much need
for the engines and transmissions, they never go. My brother in law
said that was the reason they bought only Ford vans and trucks, they
held up. He said they wouldn't even think about any other brand.

You've got to go with what you know!

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:23 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

You want a review of the Ram... ok.

My 1st in 1984 (1/2 ton, 2wd) went 130,000 with nothing other than an
electronic ignition module that went bad at about 50,000. I replaced it
with
a standard vacuum advance, and it was good 'till I traded it on a 1990
(3/4
ton, 4wd). The 1990 had the tranny go south at 60,000 but was replaced
under
warantee, and was problem free till I traded it on a '95 at about 100k.
The
'95 (3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab) was absolutely problem free until I
traded
it on my current Dodge... an '03. The '95 had about 150k on it at the
time.
So far, the '03 (3/4 ton, 4wd, crew cab, hemi) has not had a single
problem
other than normal stuff (brakes, tune-up, etc) as with the other trucks.
I've only got about 50k on it right now. Until Dodge gives me a reason to
go
elsewhere, it's the truck for me.

--Mike


To someone who owns Toyotas, the above sounds like a series of lemons. Why
would
you be replacing trannies and ignition systems at 50-60k? And why was the
original ignition system not replaced with the same thing as the original?
Did
someone tell you it would probably fail again?

I owned a 64 Dodge Dart convertible with a slant 6 that was pretty good. I
think
it must have been a very different company back then.




A large segment of the buying public was (and probably still is) willing to
pretend that a short life span is normal for certain car brands. Cars are a
unique product category in this regard.

"Capt John" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:01:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Chevy Silverado v. Toyota Tundra v. Ford F-150

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG...%2F%2Fwww%2Emo...

http://tinyurl.com/24exwz

FORD RULES!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

Anybody with a socket wrench and five minutes could easily reverse the
outcome
of that dummied up test.

When Ford's start regularly going 200,000+ miles without anything besides
minor
routine maintenance, please let me know. That is NOT their present
reputation.

What exactly does pickup box bounce indicate, anyway? Maybe Ford needs to
do
some homework. It may be an advantage for the mighty oak tree to sway in
the
wind, rather than standing firm and breaking. Most competent engineers
know
that.

Your way off on that one. Ford's trucks are well known for being able
to take a beating, always have been. And lasting longer than anyone
else. Try beating the Toyota the same way, and you will end up getting
to know their service manager on a first name basis. Take a look
around, if the Toyota is so good, why are their none in any large
fleets that see heavy use? The fleet buyers know what Consumer Reports
doesn't. Their concerned about service life, value and cost of
ownership, their not concerned about resale values that are based on
someone's preception, they have to live in the real world, their jobs
depend on it. The Toyota's just fine for a home owner's trips to Home
Depot, or the guy that never hauls anything, but if it's going to get
abused on a regular basis, it'll end up a very expensive low milage
junker.

You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about Toyota
trucks. Please do so right now.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:41:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:23 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

You want a review of the Ram... ok.

My 1st in 1984 (1/2 ton, 2wd) went 130,000 with nothing other than an
electronic ignition module that went bad at about 50,000. I replaced it
with
a standard vacuum advance, and it was good 'till I traded it on a 1990
(3/4
ton, 4wd). The 1990 had the tranny go south at 60,000 but was replaced
under
warantee, and was problem free till I traded it on a '95 at about 100k.
The
'95 (3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab) was absolutely problem free until I
traded
it on my current Dodge... an '03. The '95 had about 150k on it at the
time.
So far, the '03 (3/4 ton, 4wd, crew cab, hemi) has not had a single
problem
other than normal stuff (brakes, tune-up, etc) as with the other trucks.
I've only got about 50k on it right now. Until Dodge gives me a reason
to
go
elsewhere, it's the truck for me.

--Mike


To someone who owns Toyotas, the above sounds like a series of lemons.
Why
would
you be replacing trannies and ignition systems at 50-60k? And why was
the
original ignition system not replaced with the same thing as the
original?
Did
someone tell you it would probably fail again?

I owned a 64 Dodge Dart convertible with a slant 6 that was pretty good.
I
think
it must have been a very different company back then.




A large segment of the buying public was (and probably still is) willing
to
pretend that a short life span is normal for certain car brands. Cars are
a
unique product category in this regard.


You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about the
buying
public. Please do so right now.
--
John H

Interviews, and blindly loyal comments from people who think replacing a
tranny at 60k miles is normal.

"John H." wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:43:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Capt John" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:01:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Chevy Silverado v. Toyota Tundra v. Ford F-150

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG...%2F%2Fwww%2Emo...

http://tinyurl.com/24exwz

FORD RULES!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

Anybody with a socket wrench and five minutes could easily reverse the
outcome
of that dummied up test.

When Ford's start regularly going 200,000+ miles without anything
besides
minor
routine maintenance, please let me know. That is NOT their present
reputation.

What exactly does pickup box bounce indicate, anyway? Maybe Ford needs
to
do
some homework. It may be an advantage for the mighty oak tree to sway
in
the
wind, rather than standing firm and breaking. Most competent engineers
know
that.

Your way off on that one. Ford's trucks are well known for being able
to take a beating, always have been. And lasting longer than anyone
else. Try beating the Toyota the same way, and you will end up getting
to know their service manager on a first name basis. Take a look
around, if the Toyota is so good, why are their none in any large
fleets that see heavy use? The fleet buyers know what Consumer Reports
doesn't. Their concerned about service life, value and cost of
ownership, their not concerned about resale values that are based on
someone's preception, they have to live in the real world, their jobs
depend on it. The Toyota's just fine for a home owner's trips to Home
Depot, or the guy that never hauls anything, but if it's going to get
abused on a regular basis, it'll end up a very expensive low milage
junker.

You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about Toyota
trucks. Please do so right now.


Weren't you the one who said to take the truck talk elsewhere, which got
you the approval of HK?

Now, are you implying, by your request, that Toyota trucks are *not* good
for trips to Home Depot?
--
John H

I just want the source of data to back up the various claims he made in the
paragraph beginning with "Your way off...".

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:01:26 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:43:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Capt John" wrote in message
egroups.com...
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:01:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Chevy Silverado v. Toyota Tundra v. Ford F-150

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG...%2F%2Fwww%2Emo...

http://tinyurl.com/24exwz

FORD RULES!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

Anybody with a socket wrench and five minutes could easily reverse
the
outcome
of that dummied up test.

When Ford's start regularly going 200,000+ miles without anything
besides
minor
routine maintenance, please let me know. That is NOT their present
reputation.

What exactly does pickup box bounce indicate, anyway? Maybe Ford
needs
to
do
some homework. It may be an advantage for the mighty oak tree to sway
in
the
wind, rather than standing firm and breaking. Most competent
engineers
know
that.

Your way off on that one. Ford's trucks are well known for being able
to take a beating, always have been. And lasting longer than anyone
else. Try beating the Toyota the same way, and you will end up getting
to know their service manager on a first name basis. Take a look
around, if the Toyota is so good, why are their none in any large
fleets that see heavy use? The fleet buyers know what Consumer Reports
doesn't. Their concerned about service life, value and cost of
ownership, their not concerned about resale values that are based on
someone's preception, they have to live in the real world, their jobs
depend on it. The Toyota's just fine for a home owner's trips to Home
Depot, or the guy that never hauls anything, but if it's going to get
abused on a regular basis, it'll end up a very expensive low milage
junker.

You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about Toyota
trucks. Please do so right now.


Weren't you the one who said to take the truck talk elsewhere, which got
you the approval of HK?

Now, are you implying, by your request, that Toyota trucks are *not*
good
for trips to Home Depot?
--
John H

I just want the source of data to back up the various claims he made in
the
paragraph beginning with "Your way off...".


I just want to know if you were the one who was just admonishing me, with
Harry's approval, of course, for participating in a truck discussion on
rec.boats.

Is Harry's approval important to you?
--
John H

Your "Harry's approval" delusional is exactly that. I can't stop Harry from
being a hanger-on. Maybe you can talk to him.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:00:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:41:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:23 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

You want a review of the Ram... ok.

My 1st in 1984 (1/2 ton, 2wd) went 130,000 with nothing other than an
electronic ignition module that went bad at about 50,000. I replaced
it
with
a standard vacuum advance, and it was good 'till I traded it on a 1990
(3/4
ton, 4wd). The 1990 had the tranny go south at 60,000 but was replaced
under
warantee, and was problem free till I traded it on a '95 at about
100k.
The
'95 (3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab) was absolutely problem free until I
traded
it on my current Dodge... an '03. The '95 had about 150k on it at the
time.
So far, the '03 (3/4 ton, 4wd, crew cab, hemi) has not had a single
problem
other than normal stuff (brakes, tune-up, etc) as with the other
trucks.
I've only got about 50k on it right now. Until Dodge gives me a reason
to
go
elsewhere, it's the truck for me.

--Mike


To someone who owns Toyotas, the above sounds like a series of lemons.
Why
would
you be replacing trannies and ignition systems at 50-60k? And why was
the
original ignition system not replaced with the same thing as the
original?
Did
someone tell you it would probably fail again?

I owned a 64 Dodge Dart convertible with a slant 6 that was pretty
good.
I
think
it must have been a very different company back then.




A large segment of the buying public was (and probably still is) willing
to
pretend that a short life span is normal for certain car brands. Cars
are
a
unique product category in this regard.


You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about the
buying
public. Please do so right now.
--
John H

Interviews, and blindly loyal comments from people who think replacing a
tranny at 60k miles is normal.


That is a hell of a source.
--
John H

Oh? You'd be more impressed if a magazine author got the same information by
speaking to the same kinds of people, and then reported it to you? I don't
need intermediaries.

On Aug 3, 1:19 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message

...





On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:00:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:41:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:50:23 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

You want a review of the Ram... ok.

My 1st in 1984 (1/2 ton, 2wd) went 130,000 with nothing other than an
electronic ignition module that went bad at about 50,000. I replaced
it
with
a standard vacuum advance, and it was good 'till I traded it on a 1990
(3/4
ton, 4wd). The 1990 had the tranny go south at 60,000 but was replaced
under
warantee, and was problem free till I traded it on a '95 at about
100k.
The
'95 (3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab) was absolutely problem free until I
traded
it on my current Dodge... an '03. The '95 had about 150k on it at the
time.
So far, the '03 (3/4 ton, 4wd, crew cab, hemi) has not had a single
problem
other than normal stuff (brakes, tune-up, etc) as with the other
trucks.
I've only got about 50k on it right now. Until Dodge gives me a reason
to
go
elsewhere, it's the truck for me.

--Mike

To someone who owns Toyotas, the above sounds like a series of lemons.
Why
would
you be replacing trannies and ignition systems at 50-60k? And why was
the
original ignition system not replaced with the same thing as the
original?
Did
someone tell you it would probably fail again?

I owned a 64 Dodge Dart convertible with a slant 6 that was pretty
good.
I
think
it must have been a very different company back then.

A large segment of the buying public was (and probably still is) willing
to
pretend that a short life span is normal for certain car brands. Cars
are
a
unique product category in this regard.

You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about the
buying
public. Please do so right now.
--
John H

Interviews, and blindly loyal comments from people who think replacing a
tranny at 60k miles is normal.

That is a hell of a source.
--
John H

Oh? You'd be more impressed if a magazine author got the same information by
speaking to the same kinds of people, and then reported it to you? I don't
need intermediaries.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, so which one would you rather ride down a rough road? Which one
would you rather resell? Which one would you drive to the ground?
Which one would you drive your girl friend to the beach in? Real tool
guys realize that everyone uses different tools for different
activities, I have 11 hammers, and use them all. There is no excuse
anymore for any engine or drivetrain to fail unless used beyond it's
design. I know there are times, but basically, modern drive trains,
taken care of, not abused, should outlast most bodies. If it comes to
towing, and I had my druthers, I would take the old ladder frame Ford.
Taking a couple of kakaks and my babe to the beach, maybe the Toyota,
or of course my personal fav, not in the discussion, my old CJ. Just
some ramblings from someone who has worked in the automotive
industry , towing industry (wreckers were all Fords BTW, the hook was
a 1976. and done a good deal of off roading GMC and Jeep mostly...

One last thought before I go use my BOAT!!! Remember boats anyone.
Maybe you all love your trucks so much cause you are just really smart
guys, bought the right tool in the first place, took care of it, and
it served you well

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:43:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Capt John" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:57:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:01:30 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:

Chevy Silverado v. Toyota Tundra v. Ford F-150

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShwG...%2F%2Fwww%2Emo...

http://tinyurl.com/24exwz

FORD RULES!!!

WHOO HOO!!!

Anybody with a socket wrench and five minutes could easily reverse the
outcome
of that dummied up test.

When Ford's start regularly going 200,000+ miles without anything besides
minor
routine maintenance, please let me know. That is NOT their present
reputation.

What exactly does pickup box bounce indicate, anyway? Maybe Ford needs to
do
some homework. It may be an advantage for the mighty oak tree to sway in
the
wind, rather than standing firm and breaking. Most competent engineers
know
that.

Your way off on that one. Ford's trucks are well known for being able
to take a beating, always have been. And lasting longer than anyone
else. Try beating the Toyota the same way, and you will end up getting
to know their service manager on a first name basis. Take a look
around, if the Toyota is so good, why are their none in any large
fleets that see heavy use? The fleet buyers know what Consumer Reports
doesn't. Their concerned about service life, value and cost of
ownership, their not concerned about resale values that are based on
someone's preception, they have to live in the real world, their jobs
depend on it. The Toyota's just fine for a home owner's trips to Home
Depot, or the guy that never hauls anything, but if it's going to get
abused on a regular basis, it'll end up a very expensive low milage
junker.

You forgot to post the source of your data for your claims about Toyota
trucks. Please do so right now.


Weren't you the one who said to take the truck talk elsewhere, which got
you the approval of HK?

Now, are you implying, by your request, that Toyota trucks are *not* good
for trips to Home Depot?
--
John H