Mexstan

Have been reading different threads for some time now about upgraded automatic transmissions such as ATS and how much better they are than the OEM. Although I have never been a fan of slushboxes, I am still curious about something.
If aftermarket places can make something like an AT much better than OEM, why don't the manufacturers? OK, it may cost a little more, but surely the costs can't be that much specially if it is done from scratch and over thousands of units. Also the customers would be a lot happier and there probably would be almost zero costly warranty claims.

Lil Dog

I agree.. Since the CTD started coming with the OD tranny back in 91, there has been nothing but problems. And you are right that the aftermarket picks up the slack every time.

If DC can't design one from scratch just for up to 800 ft-lbs, then source it out and have someone else build it. Chevy was smart on that one..

J-eh

PumpDaddy

It goes back to what I was told whenI worked for 1 of the largest manufacturers of vacuum pumps and compressors in the world. If they made a pump, or tranny that was bullet proof, that would kill the repair centers business and also repair parts sales. The answer I got was the "company" AKA stock holders would loose money, I stood up and asked the V.P. "so we keep giving the customer a pump that will only run for 1-2 years under extreme conditions and keep the family happy" I was "escorted" out of the meeting, written up, pay was busted by $5000.00 a year and told to SHUT UP. I didn't know that a member of the family was at the meeting. This WAS a privitely owned co (family), but in 1992 the ONLY did 1 billion in total sales. Why can we sale a part for $3000.00 and they sale it for $14,000.00, yes my cost are lower than theirs, but give me a break, I worked for the crooks, I know what their per man hour cost are, it was $78.00 per man hour when I took over, $43.00 when I left, they are just padding the pocket.
MY .02 worth

Bodey

The money they make on parts clearly justifies a cheaper begining product. Most people that don't have a sniff about vehicles will gladly replace there five year old broken part (ie.transmission) with stock parts rather than OEM because they don't know the difference and if they do stock is cheaper. As an example you will notice that many small cars that were trouble free and went for ever were either discontinued or redesigned. The automobile companies couldn't make a rip on replacement parts.

The average person only keeps a vehicle for five years and thats how long many components are built to last. Hence a lifetime non-transferable warranty on shocks, plugs, etc. from parts source, and many other parts places. They aren't worried about losing a fortune in returned parts because 98% of the time the purchaser gets rid of the vehicle before the end of the life of the part which expires the warranty.

AlpineRAM

Why they can't build better ATs?
First if they did it would hurt the gasser market massively. Then these trucks will be sold empty. Nobody hooks up a trailer or puts 2 tons of mortar in the bed and heads for chillicoote pass on a test drive. So they do sell comfort and plushy ride. Take a DTT tranny and it will shift firmer than stock. If I had only had 10 minutes and no idea about that stuff I'd state that stock rides better than DTT. I am quite shure that there are lots of satisfied customers with stock transmissions. I wouldn't blame Chrysler for building stuff that won't stand bombing, and that's made to suit the majority of the market.

Just my 2c

AlpineRAM

Mexstan

OK AlpineRAM, then let's take this a step further. Let's not just talk about trucks which I should have clarified in my original question. What about the transmissions for the gasser market? I have friends who own Chrysler cars and their transmissions did not last to the end of the warranty and those cars were not bombed or driven hard. Surely it would not cost peanuts to build in better quality, and therefore better cuctomer satisfaction? I know there is the practice of planned obselescence but in this day and age does it really apply to cars and trucks? Should it? Are not the general public coditioned to keep buying the latest and 'best'? So if a vehicle manufacturer produced a better quality product (new and improved) would this not make for more loyal customers and less warranty work? Don't customers switch brands because they were dissatisfied for some reason? In the case of vehicles I suspect but cannot prove, that the majority of customers that switched to another vehicle manufacturer was because the dealer did a lousy job of customer service with warranty problems.
Does it not follow that if a vehicle manufacturer built a bulletproof vehicle that they would end up with very satisfied customers that would still purchase a new vehicle after X years anyway? After all, the population of the world is expanding rapidly so they would still end up with more and more customers.

Tartarus

Uh, if components are built to last five years because that's the market, then why did DC put the Cummins 5.9L in their pickup trucks? Two different design philosophies in the same vehicle -- an engine that lasts forever, and a transmission (and everything else) that doesn't? That's not good business sense, that's a contradictory assessment of the market.

apache

Being in the mass manufacturing of parts at one time in my life I can say this, Us and many of the Big three sub out many parts, French trannies,Puegot,over seas electrics, On and on, not to rag on all of them ,but at times we were supplied with junk ,but the contracts stayed in place until it was rebid months later. Its kinda the poop runs down hill theory, and the customer was on the bottom. Defective materials made defective parts that made defective cars. Politics in mfg.Still its no excuse and it really amazes me how its handled at a customer service level. Problems? we aint got no stinking problems.

Monty

As others have already said, the same company that mass produces and sells the automobiles and drivetrain also have to keep in mind there revinue on parts.

FWIW...Cummins is also guilty. In the late 80's. Cummins came up with an oil called Cummins Gold. Before it hit the markets, large fleets running the 855 Big Cam engines were sent the Cummins Gold in Bulk. There directions to the fleets were to start the engine out with Cummins Gold and run nothing else. Then after 1 million miles, to bring it in and Cummins would do an inspection of all parts etc. This oil was so good that only regular rebuild gaskets had to be replaced in virtually all of there test engines. After much thought, Cummins decided to drop the Cummins Gold Oil in fear that major revunue would be lost in parts sells. Then came along Cummins Premium Blue.

apache

Huh, geez wonder if there is any left around!!! have to look on Ebay ;D Not to sound to much like a black cloud, but I always questioned some factory products for that reason. Its amazing how a 5 year battery lasts 5 years and 1 day ,then it fails.

AlpineRAM

Mexstan: I do think I narrowed it own too much on the trucks. I know about lousy service at the dealers. Actually I do not buy a car or truck I buy mobility and transport capacity. So to me it is very important that I get these two for my money. Lots of people do buy new cars to impress their neighbours. So they need all the shiny new gizmos on the market. Since they can't really afford it they go for the cheapest that has all the gizmos, and for the cheapest service. At least over here that is what makes the vehicles troublesome.
Over here we had a production of really reasonable cars. Reliable, economic and good. (small cars) - There are still comparably lots of them running from the late 50s. But people didn't buy enough of them because these cars weren't "shiniy and new", and you couldn't distinguish model years from the outside. As an example there was the Puch 650 (yes 650cc - 40ci) which would last an average 250 000 kms (155 k miles) before rebuild in the 60s. These cars sported 45 mpg in the 60s. The company went bancrupt in the 70s.

AlpineRAM

Mexstan

AlpineRAM, you bring back memories. I remember the Puch. They also made small motorcycles. BTW, at one time I owned a Heinkel three wheeler. Can't remember if it was a 650 or a 750 cc single cylinder. It gave 60 mpg.
Your comments made me think of something else that hopefully will not get heated here. Can anyone explain why apparantly the US car manufactures cannot seem to make a vehicle with better or even equivalent quality to some of the European or Japanese cars? For example, when I lived in Africa a common car there is the Peugeot. I have owned many. They are almost impossible to kill (unless they rust out). I have driven them for hundreds of thousands of miles on 100% dirt roads and they just do not quit. We never took it easy either. Only had two speeds. Stop and fast. Consequently it always amuses me in the US and Canada to see drivers going from a paved road to a dirt road and slow right down. For us, the dirt road or the paved road meant the same speed, but only if we were driving something like a Peugeot, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota or a Citroen. If we were driving a Pontiac, Dodge or Ford we slowed down because the car would shake, rattle and roll terribly. They did not last either.

Helicopter Dan

Monty

that Cummins Gold oil???

it was repackaged

Amsoil!!!!!



Only kidding everyone not trying to start an oil war

Holsteinman

[quote author=Helicopter Dan link=board=8;threadid=22136;start=0#msg207504 date=1068343196]

Only kidding everyone not trying to start an oil war
[/quote]
Sure

Helicopter Dan

[quote author=Holsteinman link=board=8;threadid=22136;start=0#msg207509 date=1068343823]
[quote author=Helicopter Dan link=board=8;threadid=22136;start=0#msg207504 date=1068343196]

Only kidding everyone not trying to start an oil war
[/quote]
Sure
[/quote] ;D ;D