Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
plant.

Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
assembled?

-KM

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

June 30, 2008 - 3:25 pm ET
UPDATED: 6/30/08 4:30 p.m. EDT


Chrysler LLC plans to idle its St. Louis South minivan plant indefinitely,
effective Oct. 31. Chrysler is also cutting production at its St. Louis
North truck plant to one shift, effective Sept. 2.

But Chrysler co-president Tom LaSorda said Monday that it is not likely the
plant will reopen.

"We see no intent to rerun this plant. We're idling it and it will likely be
fully closed."

St. Louis South, in Fenton, Mo., has been making minivans on one shift and
employs about 1,500 workers. The St. Louis North plant, which had been
working on two shifts, will lose 900 jobs after the second shift ends.

St. Louis South makes three vehicles: the Chrysler Town and Country, the
Dodge Grand Caravan and the Chrysler Grand Voyager for Europe. Chrysler also
makes minivans at its Windsor, Ontario, assembly plant on three shifts. Two
of those shifts make Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Grand Caravan
minivans. The third shift makes the Volkswagen Routan.

LaSorda said Chrysler had a difficult choice to make between Windsor and St.
Louis South: "When you look at one plant on three shifts and another on one,
we had no choice but to go with the volume plant. We have the capacity for
three shifts of work. So that's what we did. Those are the tough decisions
we have to make."

For the first five months of 2008, sales of the Chrysler Town & Country and
Dodge Grand Caravan have declined 13.4 percent and 34.6 percent
respectively.

Jim Press, Chrysler co-president, said economic factors drove Chrysler's
decision.

"Obviously we're at slow point. Consumer confidence has been hit by oil
prices and the credit crunch. It has created a situation if we want to meet
or exceed the targets we have to move responsibly. We're a market-driven
company and it's important to match production" to sales.

St. Louis lost out for political and economic reasons, said Glenn Kage Jr.,
financial secretary at UAW Local 136 representing workers at the St. Louis
North pickup plant.

Chrysler can make minivans in Windsor, Ontario, for $1,000 per vehicle less
than St. Louis South because of the savings to the company of Canada's
national health care system, Kage said.

St. Louis North also is at a disadvantage because it is smaller than its
counterpart pick-up assembly plant in Warren, Mich., Kage said. St. Louis
North can churn out only 41 pickups per hour at full capacity compared with
65 at Warren, he said. Politically, Chrysler was more willing to sacrifice a
plant in St. Louis far from Detroit than a plant like Warren or Windsor in
its own backyard, he said.

"Detroit's a national industrial hub and we're far away," he said.

Kage downplayed the influence of labor relations on the decision. St. Louis
North and South soundly defeated last fall's master contract agreement
between Chrysler and the UAW.

That defeat encouraged dissidents and forced a full-court lobbying effort at
crucial Detroit-area locals by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and his
minions to narrowly pass the contract. One of the locals that passed the
agreement was Warren Truck.

"I wouldn't put too much into the negotiations," Kage said. The St. Louis
UAW locals already had key local operating agreements before the master
negotiations, granting flexibility in work rules and other factory
operations, he said.

Kage said Chrysler has spent about $300 million over the past two years on
plant improvements at St. Louis South and $500 million at St. Louis North.
He said he hoped the State of Missouri would audit the tax abatements
granted for the investments in light of job promises made for the factories.


<kmath50@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424798@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com ...
> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
> plant.
>
> Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
> assembled?
>
> -KM

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

kmath50@gmail . com wrote:
> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
> plant.
>


Bummer- that's the plant where my '69 Coronet R/T was built.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

In article
<ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424798@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com >,
kmath50@gmail . com wrote:

> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
> plant.
>
> Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
> assembled?
>
> -KM

Not surprising they are cutting back mini van production.
With the higher gas prices van demand must be down and the new Journey
short length mini van replacement is taking some of the van volume.

IMO the Journey isn't a crossover, but a short van.
The step down is more than a crossover, it's higher, and the spare is
stored exposed underneath in van fashion.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

On Jul 1, 11:40 am, who <i...@notaspammer . net > wrote:
> In article
> <ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com >,
>
>  kmat...@gmail . com wrote:
> > Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
> > plant.
>
> > Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
> > assembled?
>
> > -KM
>
> Not surprising they are cutting back mini van production.
> With the higher gas prices van demand must be down and the new Journey
> short length mini van replacement is taking some of the van volume.
>
> IMO the Journey isn't a crossover, but a short van.
> The step down is more than a crossover, it's higher, and the spare is
> stored exposed underneath in van fashion.

Maybe it's just my perception, but I have not seen very many 2008
Chrysler
Minivans on the road. We are almost to the end of the 2008 model
year.

I have been thinking of buying one, but if gasoline prices continue to
climb, I obviously
don't want to sink money into something I can't use.

-KM

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

kmath50@gmail . com wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:40 am, who <i...@notaspammer . net > wrote:
>> In article
>> <ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com >,
>>
>> kmat...@gmail . com wrote:
>>> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
>>> plant.
>>> Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
>>> assembled?
>>> -KM
>> Not surprising they are cutting back mini van production.
>> With the higher gas prices van demand must be down and the new Journey
>> short length mini van replacement is taking some of the van volume.
>>
>> IMO the Journey isn't a crossover, but a short van.
>> The step down is more than a crossover, it's higher, and the spare is
>> stored exposed underneath in van fashion.
>
> Maybe it's just my perception, but I have not seen very many 2008
> Chrysler
> Minivans on the road. We are almost to the end of the 2008 model
> year.
>
> I have been thinking of buying one, but if gasoline prices continue to
> climb, I obviously
> don't want to sink money into something I can't use.
>
> -KM
>

They're out there and they still have the biggest share of the minivan
market. But the whole car market is WAY down.

I had a rental Caravan (08 model) a couple of weeks ago. It was a
definite step down from the Pacifica I had not long before, but on the
whole it wasn't nearly as van-like as previous minivans- much more like
the Pacifica. And that's a GOOD thing. One thing I really liked was that
the sliding door windows rolled down- Chrysler always did a better job
with small but useful innovations like that than ANY other minivan maker.

One gripe I had at first was HORRIBLE wind noise- but then my co-worker
and I realized that some doofus had installed the roof-rack bars
backward (pointy edge forward- the blunt edge is supposed to point
forward.) We flipped them around and it fixed all the wind noise
problems. I hope to God that the idiots at Avis don't do this to many of
them, or a whole lot of people would come away saying "I'm never buying
one of those things as long as I live!"

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

On Jul 2, 10:33 am, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> kmat...@gmail . com wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 11:40 am, who <i...@notaspammer . net > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com >,
>
> >> kmat...@gmail . com wrote:
> >>> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
> >>> plant.
> >>> Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
> >>> assembled?
> >>> -KM
> >> Not surprising they are cutting back mini van production.
> >> With the higher gas prices van demand must be down and the new Journey
> >> short length mini van replacement is taking some of the van volume.
>
> >> IMO the Journey isn't a crossover, but a short van.
> >> The step down is more than a crossover, it's higher, and the spare is
> >> stored exposed underneath in van fashion.
>
> > Maybe it's just my perception, but I have not seen very many 2008
> > Chrysler
> > Minivans on the road. We are almost to the end of the 2008 model
> > year.
>
> > I have been thinking of buying one, but if gasoline prices continue to
> > climb, I obviously
> > don't want to sink money into something I can't use.
>
> > -KM
>
> They're out there and they still have the biggest share of the minivan
> market. But the whole car market is WAY down.
>
> I had a rental Caravan (08 model) a couple of weeks ago. It was a
> definite step down from the Pacifica I had not long before, but on the
> whole it wasn't nearly as van-like as previous minivans- much more like
> the Pacifica. And that's a GOOD thing. One thing I really liked was that
> the sliding door windows rolled down- Chrysler always did a better job
> with small but useful innovations like that than ANY other minivan maker.
>

Uh, Toyota and Honda had this before Chrysler. Chrysler's only recent
innovations for minivans are the stow-n-go and swivel-n-go seats.

Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no. Still beam
rear axle. Handling and steering worse than previous models,
according to all tests. Cheap interiors (Chrysler seems to cheapen
out on the interiors of all their new models lately).

Why are they still putting a 175-hp engine into a large minivan? Why
team it up with the antiquated 4-sp auto, when economy cars for half
the price offer 5-speeds?

And the exterior styling -- were they trying to appeal to those in the
witness protection program? Because they sure are anonymous and
plain. Look back at especially the 2nd gen minivans -- those had nice
styling.

> One gripe I had at first was HORRIBLE wind noise- but then my co-worker
> and I realized that some doofus had installed the roof-rack bars
> backward (pointy edge forward- the blunt edge is supposed to point
> forward.) We flipped them around and it fixed all the wind noise
> problems. I hope to God that the idiots at Avis don't do this to many of
> them, or a whole lot of people would come away saying "I'm never buying
> one of those things as long as I live!"

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Lloyd wrote:

> Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
> steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
> with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no.

The handling was superb, no complaints there. Its a farquing VAN, its
not going to corner like a Viper no matter what you do to it.

> Still beam
> rear axle.

Good- better for interior space and ruggedness. I'll know Chrysler
engineers have become irrelevant and the advertising toads are running
the company when the minivan gets an IRS. IRS makes good glossy brochure
advertising, but has absolutely no real-world benefit in a minivan and
has some definite drawbacks. Its bad enough they put an IFS on the
Liberty, but at least it still has a real beam rear axle that prevents
it from being 100% poseur like the Escape and RAV-4 (and, I might add,
the Compass and Patriot...)

> Handling and steering worse than previous models,
> according to all tests.

Nonsense.

> Cheap interiors (Chrysler seems to cheapen
> out on the interiors of all their new models lately).

Can't argue that, but then the rental I had was the absolute lowest trim
level available. And let me back up- the interior *looked* cheaply
styled, however the materials themselves felt very high-quality on close
inspection. Nary a squeak nor rattle nor buzz to be heard.

>
> Why are they still putting a 175-hp engine into a large minivan? Why
> team it up with the antiquated 4-sp auto, when economy cars for half
> the price offer 5-speeds?

Only the second half of the question is valid to me. Early minivans had
a 100-HP engine option, its a VAN not a top-fuel dragster, there's
nothing wrong in offering a low-output economical engine provided it
actually achieves the goal of economy- which the transmission seems to
prevent it from doing. Give the 175 HP engine another gear and it might
actually beat the economy of higher power engines. As it is, it barely
matches them and often gets WORSE mileage in the real world. I could say
the same thing about offering a 2.7L/4-speed combo in the LX cars, where
the 253-HP 3.5/5-speed performs way better and gets the same or better
real-world fuel economy.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

On Jul 3, 11:51 am, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
> > steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
> > with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no.
>
> The handling was superb, no complaints there. Its a farquing VAN, its
> not going to corner like a Viper no matter what you do to it.
>

No, but it doesn't have to corner like a 50s DeSoto either. Ever try
an Odyssey?

> > Still beam
> > rear axle.
>
> Good- better for interior space and ruggedness.

Actually worse. It takes up space which could be used.

>I'll know Chrysler
> engineers have become irrelevant and the advertising toads are running
> the company when the minivan gets an IRS. IRS makes good glossy brochure
> advertising, but has absolutely no real-world benefit in a minivan and
> has some definite drawbacks.

Absolutely false.

>Its bad enough they put an IFS on the
> Liberty, but at least it still has a real beam rear axle that prevents
> it from being 100% poseur like the Escape and RAV-4 (and, I might add,
> the Compass and Patriot...)

And Range Rover?

>
> > Handling and steering worse than previous models,
> > according to all tests.
>
> Nonsense.

Hey, it's what ever tester has said.

>
> > Cheap interiors (Chrysler seems to cheapen
> > out on the interiors of all their new models lately).
>
> Can't argue that, but then the rental I had was the absolute lowest trim
> level available.

But even on the upper levels, too much plastic, hard feel, sharp
edges, flimsy pieces...

>And let me back up- the interior *looked* cheaply
> styled, however the materials themselves felt very high-quality on close
> inspection. Nary a squeak nor rattle nor buzz to be heard.
>
>
>
> > Why are they still putting a 175-hp engine into a large minivan? Why
> > team it up with the antiquated 4-sp auto, when economy cars for half
> > the price offer 5-speeds?
>
> Only the second half of the question is valid to me. Early minivans had
> a 100-HP engine option,

Yes, but they weighed a LOT less too.

>its a VAN not a top-fuel dragster, there's
> nothing wrong in offering a low-output economical engine provided it
> actually achieves the goal of economy- which the transmission seems to
> prevent it from doing. Give the 175 HP engine another gear and it might
> actually beat the economy of higher power engines. As it is, it barely
> matches them and often gets WORSE mileage in the real world. I could say
> the same thing about offering a 2.7L/4-speed combo in the LX cars, where
> the 253-HP 3.5/5-speed performs way better and gets the same or better
> real-world fuel economy.

They should have put the Pacifica steering, brakes, and suspension in
the new minivans. And the 4.0 L sohc V6 only and 6-speed only.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

In article
<16de66f3-8443-4fb2-9483-3797b2fc6c7d@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups . com >,
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:

> Hey, it's what ever tester has said.

Polly want a cracker?

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Lloyd wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:51 am, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>> Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
>>> steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
>>> with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no.
>> The handling was superb, no complaints there. Its a farquing VAN, its
>> not going to corner like a Viper no matter what you do to it.
>>
>
> No, but it doesn't have to corner like a 50s DeSoto either. Ever try
> an Odyssey?

Yes. the only discernable difference is on REALLY nasty washboard while
cornering rather fast.
>
>>> Still beam
>>> rear axle.
>> Good- better for interior space and ruggedness.
>
> Actually worse. It takes up space which could be used.


No, it doesn't. It allows the use of leaf springs which intrude into the
below-seat area far less than A-arms or multi-link suspension required
for IRS. The axle itself is a drop-center crossbar and remains below the
floor pan and doesn't interfere with things like the wells for stow-n-go
seating, which IRS would.


>
>> Its bad enough they put an IFS on the
>> Liberty, but at least it still has a real beam rear axle that prevents
>> it from being 100% poseur like the Escape and RAV-4 (and, I might add,
>> the Compass and Patriot...)
>
> And Range Rover?


The ultimate poseur offroad vehicle. Now if you'd said H1, you might
have a point. Of course the H1 has geared hubs and about a hundred other
things (including about a foot and a half of articulation) that make its
independent suspension offroadable, too.



>

> They should have put the Pacifica steering, brakes, and suspension in
> the new minivans. And the 4.0 L sohc V6 only and 6-speed only.
>

I'll wager that the steering gear (generic Saginaw issue) and front
suspension of the Pacifica IS identical to the Caravoyager already. But
since the Pacifica has IRS, it can't have stow-n-go seating. A fair
trade in a sportier vehicle where the slight handling advantage is more
important than the lost stowage.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

On Jul 7, 5:22 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 11:51 am, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >> Lloyd wrote:
> >>> Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
> >>> steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
> >>> with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no.
> >> The handling was superb, no complaints there. Its a farquing VAN, its
> >> not going to corner like a Viper no matter what you do to it.
>
> > No, but it doesn't have to corner like a 50s DeSoto either. Ever try
> > an Odyssey?
>
> Yes. the only discernable difference is on REALLY nasty washboard while
> cornering rather fast.
>
>
>
> >>> Still beam
> >>> rear axle.
> >> Good- better for interior space and ruggedness.
>
> > Actually worse. It takes up space which could be used.
>
> No, it doesn't. It allows the use of leaf springs which intrude into the
> below-seat area far less than A-arms or multi-link suspension required
> for IRS.

Yeah, leaf springs. Real 1950s. Hey, even Chrysler has seen that
light -- next year's Ram goes to rear coils.

>The axle itself is a drop-center crossbar and remains below the
> floor pan and doesn't interfere with things like the wells for stow-n-go
> seating, which IRS would.

Really? Why was Honda first with the disappearing third seat then?
In fact, every other minivan has IRS (except the dying Uplander) AND a
fold-in-the-floor third seat.

>
>
>
> >> Its bad enough they put an IFS on the
> >> Liberty, but at least it still has a real beam rear axle that prevents
> >> it from being 100% poseur like the Escape and RAV-4 (and, I might add,
> >> the Compass and Patriot...)
>
> > And Range Rover?
>
> The ultimate poseur offroad vehicle. Now if you'd said H1, you might
> have a point. Of course the H1 has geared hubs and about a hundred other
> things (including about a foot and a half of articulation) that make its
> independent suspension offroadable, too.
>

"Air suspension allowed variable ride height to suit on and off-road
conditions, and the crosslinking of the suspension elements achieved
similar axle articulation to that available with the previous live
axled generations. This was important to retain the off road
excellence and the desired on-road improvements that were core to the
marketing position of the new product." -- wikipedia

>
>
> > They should have put the Pacifica steering, brakes, and suspension in
> > the new minivans. And the 4.0 L sohc V6 only and 6-speed only.
>
> I'll wager that the steering gear (generic Saginaw issue) and front
> suspension of the Pacifica IS identical to the Caravoyager already. But
> since the Pacifica has IRS, it can't have stow-n-go seating.

Huh? Stow-n-go refers to the middle seats, not the third one, the one
over the suspension.

>A fair
> trade in a sportier vehicle where the slight handling advantage is more
> important than the lost stowage.

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Try driving an Odyssey then get back to us. Also compare prices. With or
without rebates the Odyssey is thousands less.
Every other minivan in my neighborhood is an Odyssey. Chrysler and Toyota
make up the rest.



"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:s8CdnTNCQ-wEaPHVnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@texas . net ...
> Lloyd wrote:
>
>> Now, if Chrysler had spent a few bucks and improved the handling,
>> steering, braking, and ride of the new minivans, they'd be competitive
>> with Toyota and Honda, given the seat innovations, but no.
>
> The handling was superb, no complaints there. Its a farquing VAN, its not
> going to corner like a Viper no matter what you do to it.
>
>> Still beam
>> rear axle.
>
> Good- better for interior space and ruggedness. I'll know Chrysler
> engineers have become irrelevant and the advertising toads are running the
> company when the minivan gets an IRS. IRS makes good glossy brochure
> advertising, but has absolutely no real-world benefit in a minivan and has
> some definite drawbacks. Its bad enough they put an IFS on the Liberty,
> but at least it still has a real beam rear axle that prevents it from
> being 100% poseur like the Escape and RAV-4 (and, I might add, the Compass
> and Patriot...)
>
>> Handling and steering worse than previous models,
>> according to all tests.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> Cheap interiors (Chrysler seems to cheapen
>> out on the interiors of all their new models lately).
>
> Can't argue that, but then the rental I had was the absolute lowest trim
> level available. And let me back up- the interior *looked* cheaply styled,
> however the materials themselves felt very high-quality on close
> inspection. Nary a squeak nor rattle nor buzz to be heard.
>
>>
>> Why are they still putting a 175-hp engine into a large minivan? Why
>> team it up with the antiquated 4-sp auto, when economy cars for half
>> the price offer 5-speeds?
>
> Only the second half of the question is valid to me. Early minivans had a
> 100-HP engine option, its a VAN not a top-fuel dragster, there's nothing
> wrong in offering a low-output economical engine provided it actually
> achieves the goal of economy- which the transmission seems to prevent it
> from doing. Give the 175 HP engine another gear and it might actually beat
> the economy of higher power engines. As it is, it barely matches them and
> often gets WORSE mileage in the real world. I could say the same thing
> about offering a 2.7L/4-speed combo in the LX cars, where the 253-HP
> 3.5/5-speed performs way better and gets the same or better real-world
> fuel economy.
>
>

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Odyssey has had power windows in sliding doors for many years.


"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:1P-dnYXQ1a43DPbVnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@texas . net ...
> kmath50@gmail . com wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 11:40 am, who <i...@notaspammer . net > wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ae95b0ec-5af0-4cf3-ba50-d2a864424...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups . com >,
>>>
>>> kmat...@gmail . com wrote:
>>>> Just saw on CNNMoney that Chrysler will close the South St. Louis
>>>> plant.
>>>> Isn't this where the Grand Caravans and Town & Countrys are all
>>>> assembled?
>>>> -KM
>>> Not surprising they are cutting back mini van production.
>>> With the higher gas prices van demand must be down and the new Journey
>>> short length mini van replacement is taking some of the van volume.
>>>
>>> IMO the Journey isn't a crossover, but a short van.
>>> The step down is more than a crossover, it's higher, and the spare is
>>> stored exposed underneath in van fashion.
>>
>> Maybe it's just my perception, but I have not seen very many 2008
>> Chrysler
>> Minivans on the road. We are almost to the end of the 2008 model
>> year.
>>
>> I have been thinking of buying one, but if gasoline prices continue to
>> climb, I obviously
>> don't want to sink money into something I can't use.
>>
>> -KM
>>
>
> They're out there and they still have the biggest share of the minivan
> market. But the whole car market is WAY down.
>
> I had a rental Caravan (08 model) a couple of weeks ago. It was a definite
> step down from the Pacifica I had not long before, but on the whole it
> wasn't nearly as van-like as previous minivans- much more like the
> Pacifica. And that's a GOOD thing. One thing I really liked was that the
> sliding door windows rolled down- Chrysler always did a better job with
> small but useful innovations like that than ANY other minivan maker.
>
> One gripe I had at first was HORRIBLE wind noise- but then my co-worker
> and I realized that some doofus had installed the roof-rack bars backward
> (pointy edge forward- the blunt edge is supposed to point forward.) We
> flipped them around and it fixed all the wind noise problems. I hope to
> God that the idiots at Avis don't do this to many of them, or a whole lot
> of people would come away saying "I'm never buying one of those things as
> long as I live!"

Re: Chrysler to close So. St. Louis Plant

Steve <no@spam.thanks> writes:
>
> One gripe I had at first was HORRIBLE wind noise- but then my
> co-worker and I realized that some doofus had installed the roof-rack
> bars backward (pointy edge forward- the blunt edge is supposed to
> point forward.) We flipped them around and it fixed all the wind noise
> problems. I hope to God that the idiots at Avis don't do this to many
> of them, or a whole lot of people would come away saying "I'm never
> buying one of those things as long as I live!"

I'm not quite sure whether it's more amusing that (1) you and your
co-worker set out to fix a *rental* vehicle, (2) were able to diagnose
the wind-noise problem, (3) had the tools on hand to do it, or (4)
several days after your post, nobody else has thought any of these
things unusual enough to warrant mention.