Hi. This is a great and nobel act, but as Jack and I discussed before,
it could be a losing battle. Not to be the devils advicate, nor to not
support my fellow DML'ers, but ever read the fine print at the bottom of
the brochure's or pckg descriptions? Packages and performance issues
are always subject to change without informing the customer!
Technically it is the responsibility of the consumer to be educated on
what they are purchasing. If you don't ask, you won't know. When you
pick up your vehicle from the dealer, all they are responsible for is to
make sure that you know where everything is on the vehicle and how to
operate all of the functions, i.e. windshield wipers, turn signals etc
etc.. Now, don't get me wrong. DC screwed the pooch on this one! I
know, I work there so I get a little deeper into some of the q&a with
some of the big shots there. It was not an engineering issue, nor a
design office (where I work) issue but a publishing and PR issue. The
engineers knew the problem and so did everyone but somehow it didn't go
through the right channels to get to the publisher. THIS IS ALL THE WAY
THAT I UNDERSTAND IT AND NOT A DAIMLERCHRYSLER PUBLIC RELATIONS
TRANSCRIPT TO ANYONE!
So, the way that they lowered the R/T is by using flat leaf springs in
back. I Forget the way that they did it in front and I threw away my
letter on it. The reason that the towing package is restricted is
because over time of towing heavy loads it will weaken the Frame in the
leaf area and become a serious safety issue. So yes, it truly is a
problem, but not a short term one. This obviously would be a long term
stress problem not something that is just going to break the first
couple times of towing! At first I thought it was a rear end and/or
drive shaft angle problem. Guess not.
Please, understand that I am not a rep of DC, I only work there! I am
peon! I know nothing!
Eric
Shoot, everything that I just said could be wrong too!
Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com wrote:
>
> I think some section of DC is trying to pull a fast one on the R/T towing
> issue. There is *NO* mechanical reason why the R/T shouldn't tow as much as a
> regular Dak. The frame, tranny, and everything else are the same, but the
> engine is slightly more powerful and the truck is slightly lowered. The
> former *slightly* means nothing to towing except that it's easier. The latter
> one is likely where the problem is. This is an engineering issue and DC
> should be fixing the problem instead of ducking and covering.
> By DC's own ads and spec's (there was no misprint) the R/T is a strong
> towing vehicle. If you own an R/T I seriously suggest you guys all get
> together and start a class action lawsuit to either get DC to let you off your
> loan agreements (ie: buy back), fix the problem as a recall item, or give a
> fair settlement for the misrepresentation of the vehicles abilities and loss
> of resale value. Legally, they are all attainable goals.
> This is a serious issue and if you R/T owners let DC get away with it then
> there is nothing that they can't "repeal". Nail them hard. I think the DC
> engineers could easily fix the problem but the accounting department is
> forcing this cheap tight-wad approach. The left hand is *NOT* talking to the
> right hand at DC.
>
> Shaun H.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:30 EDT