My day in court

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

Reflex wrote:

Goglio704 wrote:

Reflex wrote:

That dosen't mean people shouldn't try of course. Some might stumble into real solutions, and some may just have fun in the attempt. After all, the vehicle is personal property, everyone can do what they want with it.

There is your problem. Even when making a somewhat positive remark, you find it necessary to insult people. Many here arrive at solutions through a lot of thought, research, effort, and previous experience. You insult them by implying that it's dumb luck.

Without the original documents it is essentially dumb luck. Its not an insult to say that. Thats how almost everything is reverse engineered. The difference is that the skilled have a good idea of where to start looking, but that does not change the fact that they could be heading up a blind alley regardless. Any time your trying to repair something that you do not have full data on, you are hoping that things work like your guessing they will.

In today's day and age, reverse engineering is anything but luck and rather a business. To reveal the secrets of a bolt lets say, the following would be performed:
1) material- isotope is shot and a chemical analyisis is revealed to ID material
2) hardness- rockwell and conductivity is performed to reveal tensile properties for heat treat requirements and further ID material
3) measurement- CMM or optical laser scan to measure part to be used in creating a 3D model
4) 3D model- is used to generate rapid prototype to verify model design
5) part- 3D model used to create machining code
6) plating- visual, irridite, etc can be used to identify chrome and cad requirements

Manufacturers all over the world do this to stay competitive and have become experts in unraveling others secrets. The trick is to apply patents on the good ones before others see them. Software might be difficult to decode, there's probally programs that do this already, I don't know. Anything that you can see and do a feely touchy to, can easily be re-engineered no problem.

jdorris · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:13 am

Do me a favor (and a few others, I imagine) and post the results in a new thread. I would like to know the results, but my boots aren't tall enough to wade through twelve pages of a pissing contest. The first page was interesting, the second was mildly amusing, the following pages are a waste.

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:45 am

When all you "Hens" get done clucking over the barnyard junebug maybe we could get back to the original subject.....
:wink:

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:13 am

It is Kellog's thread, and I don't see him complaining?

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:04 am

Cluck...Cluck...Scratch...Cluck..........

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:15 am

Outstanding, now do a sheep. :roll:

geordi · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:29 am

GIRLS! You're BOTH pretty! Now knock it off, and lets get back to bashing trolls and venting about Mopar, shall we? :lol:

KJMedic · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:51 am

Reflex wrote:

Goglio704 wrote:

Reflex wrote:

That dosen't mean people shouldn't try of course. Some might stumble into real solutions, and some may just have fun in the attempt. After all, the vehicle is personal property, everyone can do what they want with it.

There is your problem. Even when making a somewhat positive remark, you find it necessary to insult people. Many here arrive at solutions through a lot of thought, research, effort, and previous experience. You insult them by implying that it's dumb luck.

Without the original documents it is essentially dumb luck. Its not an insult to say that. Thats how almost everything is reverse engineered. The difference is that the skilled have a good idea of where to start looking, but that does not change the fact that they could be heading up a blind alley regardless. Any time your trying to repair something that you do not have full data on, you are hoping that things work like your guessing they will.

You Sir have no idea about a real "Jeeper". People who have driven Jeeps for over 50 years have always found a way to make the Jeep better than it came from the factory. Also Diesel drivers have always tried and been very good at making the diesel motor better. And most of these folks are just plain folks who have tried and failed, only to try again. Chrysler took a very good Jeep brand and has turned it into what you see today. Which is not as good as it was in the late '70's and early '80's.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:02 pm

Reflex wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Panda-52 - One thing I will point out is that the CRD has had fewer issues on average than the gas Liberty. At least from what I am told by Chrysler.

My ONLY real point here is that the CRD, while having different types of potential issues than the gas version, is not necessarily more problematic on balance(Chrysler's internal data backs this up, sadly its not public).

"...what I am told by Chrysler". Chrysler internal data that is not public.

Since you're not associated with Chrysler in any way, you're privy to this info how?

As I have said before, my gf's father has been a Chrysler engineer for 30+ years. Before I bought mine, he looked into it internally to make certain I was getting a good vehicle. He has kept an eye on it for me the past two years.

If that's the case, you may be displaying poor judgement by advertising this fact on a public forum. Stating publicly that you're not associated with Chrysler but at least hinting you have access to internal company info and naming the source that gave you that info could get "dad" into trouble, depending on how sensitive the company considers that info to be and how seriously they would view it's unauthorized release.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

retmil46 wrote:

Reflex wrote:

retmil46 wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Panda-52 - One thing I will point out is that the CRD has had fewer issues on average than the gas Liberty. At least from what I am told by Chrysler.

My ONLY real point here is that the CRD, while having different types of potential issues than the gas version, is not necessarily more problematic on balance(Chrysler's internal data backs this up, sadly its not public).

"...what I am told by Chrysler". Chrysler internal data that is not public.

Since you're not associated with Chrysler in any way, you're privy to this info how?

As I have said before, my gf's father has been a Chrysler engineer for 30+ years. Before I bought mine, he looked into it internally to make certain I was getting a good vehicle. He has kept an eye on it for me the past two years.

If that's the case, you may be displaying poor judgement by advertising this fact on a public forum. Stating publicly that you're not associated with Chrysler but at least hinting you have access to internal company info and naming the source that gave you that info could get "dad" into trouble, depending on how sensitive the company considers that info to be and how seriously they would view it's unauthorized release.

Um, because I have given my real name, her real name or his real name and turned over future product plans and existing support documents? They'd have to be awful sensitive and authorize some fairly illegal surveillance to figure that one out. I haven't said anything except in the most vague general way, and I have been very careful to not give specifics and state upfront that its secondhand knowledge and purely anecdotal. I do this all the time with the company I work for on public forums, and I know the lines that can and cannot be crossed very very well. Go find one statement I have made online that could get him either a) found out or b) in trouble. His job has never made him sign a doc saying he can't discuss publicly known products over dinner with a friend. And yes, he has said more to me than what I have repeated here, I've known what not to pass on as well.

Kellogg - Just so you know, I do see this as your thread, so I will drop it all at your request at any time. I try to avoid thread hijacking, but I have enjoyed the discussion. And I am genuinely curious about the results of your case, if for no other reason than the reasoning behind it. If you want me to butt out at any point, just say so however.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:52 pm

geordi wrote:

GIRLS! You're BOTH pretty! Now knock it off, and lets get back to bashing trolls and venting about Mopar, shall we? :lol:

In the hippy vernacular - Peace. :wink:

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:05 pm

The above is true and will not change because as stated on here that engineers think they know best. Yes I do fault engineers for leaving poor designed TC and FCV system. Where did Chrysler continious improviment program go? Let's talk about Ford PowerStroke for a moment.

They had the same design FCV as our Jeeps do. When Ford PowerStroke had the same problems with FCV and EGR valves, Ford redesigned it and appilied to repairs and future engines. The fix was to remove the butterfly on the FCV and install an suction hood over the EGR inlet. Guess what, works perfect and still meet emissions. Any diesel mechanic (wrench turners) knows that you don't choke a diesel engine because you will have problems. That is what the FCV does and shows that some engineers had lost thier common sense.

Flame me if you like and wave you college degree in my face but I would listen to an old diesel tech over and enginner. Now I step off my soap box and craw under a truck with my wrench. BTW I have a degree in business management and know that Chrysler is heading to doom if they keep putting thier customers through hell and high water to get thier vehicle repaired.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Yes, wrench turners do tend to blame engineers, and in turn the engineers blame the designers who blame management who blames the bean counters. And all are at fault in one way or another, honestly. But thats neither here nor there, and its the same in any industry, and none of those groups really has the full picture, except perhaps management(if the company is well managed, which I think we all agree Chrysler has not been for quite some time now).

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:46 am

Reflex wrote:

Yes, wrench turners do tend to blame engineers, and in turn the engineers blame the designers who blame management who blames the bean counters. And all are at fault in one way or another, honestly. But thats neither here nor there, and its the same in any industry, and none of those groups really has the full picture, except perhaps management(if the company is well managed, which I think we all agree Chrysler has not been for quite some time now).

At least on that, we're in agreement. Hell froze over again. :wink:

And no, I wasn't accusing you of purposely trying to get "dad" in trouble - I did use the words MAY and COULD. On the face of it, it seemed that perhaps in the "heat of battle" so to speak you let something slip out inadvertently that was related in confidence who's public disclosure could have had damaging results for those involved. And just because specific names weren't used doesn't mean the company couldn't eventually track down who released the info if they were THAT concerned about it's release. I do understand the consequences of even unintentional disclosure (ie, 400 feet/20 knots). But if all the legal proprieties have been observed and everyone involved is up to speed on what can and can't be revealed, enough said on the subject.

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:59 am

Have we made Lemonade yet :?:

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

DarbyWalters wrote:

Have we made Lemonade yet :?:

No, not yet.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Kellog13 wrote:

DarbyWalters wrote:

Have we made Lemonade yet :?:

No, not yet.

Whether or not you believe me, I will say that I wish you the best in this. No one deserves to go through everything you listed.

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

Reflex wrote:

Kellog13 wrote:

DarbyWalters wrote:

Have we made Lemonade yet :?:

No, not yet.

Whether or not you believe me, I will say that I wish you the best in this. No one deserves to go through everything you listed.

Thanks. Soon, very soon we will know.

tulsa · **Posted:** Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:30 pm

Goglio704 wrote:

Outstanding, now do a sheep. :roll:

I beg you to skip the sheep sounds, there are those that will be aroused. That said I would like to know what the outcome is.
Lewis

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:21 pm

No..... won't do the sheep sounds.
:wink:

My day in court

Who is online