"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.