Bias Against Domestic Cars
C. E. White
vehicles. See:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
-Chevrolet Colorado
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
-Five-year cost of repairs: $798
Forbes is using the highly unreliable Consumer Report reliability
information. However, at least for this particular vehicle, the rating
may be justified. Only the Ranger and Mazda B Series had a lower
overall scores in the small truck category, and at least they had
average reliability. See GMC Canyon below...
-Chrysler Sebring Convertible
-Segment: Convertibles
-Consumer Reports Reliability Rating: More than 90% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 45
-Five-year cost of repairs: $770
Another vehicle that appears to deserve to be on the list....
-Chrysler Town & Country
-Segment: Wagons/minivans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 64
-Five-year cost of repairs: $807
-Dodge Grand Caravan
-Segment: Wagons/minivans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 60
-Five-year cost of repairs: $807
These are essentially the same vehicle -why list them separately? And
why not list the Volkwagon Routan which is essentially the same
vehicle and has almost exactly the same ratings and reliability as the
T&C.
-Ford F-250
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 37
-Five-year cost of repairs: $969
The Forbes article doesn't calrify that the Consumer Reports Rating
was only for the 4WD Turbodiesel version, and even then, that rating
was based on the prior generation engine from 2008. So Forbes is
smearing all F250s based on a two year old diesel engine option that
is sold in less than 30% of the vehicles......
-GMC Canyon
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
-Five-year cost of repairs: $718
This is the same vehicle as the Chevrolet Colorada.They should have
been listed together.
-Jaguar XF
-Segment: Luxury sedans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 72
-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,301
This one is seems very unfair. While it is true that the XF got a poor
reliability rating, it was no worse than the "recommended" Lexus GS
AWD which is not on the list of ten clunkers to avoid? Why not?
-Lincoln MKS
-Segment: Luxury sedans
-Reliability Rating: More than 80% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 73
-Five-year cost of repairs: $869
The Lincoln MKS and the Lexus GS AWD were rated almost idenitcally
(overall rating 75 for the GS, 73 for MKS) and both got the exact same
poor relibaility rating. Yet the GS is "Recommended" and the MKS shows
up as a clunker to avoid. Where is the fariness in that? The BMW 535i,
and Cadillac STS also showed up as having poor reliability, yet they
are not clunkers. Hmmmm....
-Mercedes-Benz GL450
-Segment: Luxury SUVs
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 77
-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,501
-Volkswagen Touareg
-Segment: Luxury SUVs
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 66
-Five-year cost of repairs: $907
I can't really argue with the last two, both had poor reliability
rating and high prices. However, it should be noted there were others
in the class that had the same poor reliability ratings and worse
overall scorces, but they didn't make the list. I wonder how they
picked which ones belonged?
------
I guess my complaints come down to these:
In two case Forbes listed vehicles that were essentially twins
separately, making it appear as if more US vehicles were really bad.
In the case of the Chrysler T&C Minivan, they listed it (and the Dodge
equivalent), but did not list the essentially identical VW Routan. If
they had followed form, it seems that the Routan would have been
listed separately, thereby pushing another vheicle off the lsit.
Forbes included the Lincoln MKS as a clunker, but omitted the Lexus GS
AWD which had almost the same ratings and predicted reliability. Why?
Also, when you look at the data for the MKS, most components got an
excellent rating. Only body harware got the much worse than average
rating. And in fact, the AWD MKS got as good or better reliability
ratings than the AWD GS in every category except body hardware (and
before 2008, the GS had poor body hardware). And the MKS relibaility
was rated based only on the 2009 model. Usually CR doesn't predict
reliability for new models, yet despite reliability data that actually
looks better than the Lexus GS, they gave the MKS a worse predicted
reliability rating. This seems really unfair. CR is predicting that a
vehicle with a poor relibailty history will have better reliability
than a model which in its frst year of production, already had better
reliability rating as determined by their own survey.....hmmmm...
They listed the F250 as a clunker, but only a very specific model of
the F250 qualified as having poor reliability (turbodiesel 4WD model,
based on results from two years ago). Regular F250's had an average
reliability rating. CR lists the relability for a 2010 F250 as "new
model." So it seem Forbes was unfair in including this in a list of
new vehicle to avoid if they are using the CR data...
It seems to me that Forbes picked 10 vehicle out of about 30 that
could have qualified as clunkers. By listing twins separately they
moved some deserving vehicles off the list. And the 10 listed were not
the ten worst if you go solely by CRs ratings. So what were they? The
ten that Forbes editiors liked the least? I could live with this if
Forbes provided a more completel list. However, by listing vehicles
like the Lincoln MKS and Jaguar MKS, while omitting the Lexus GS, I
have to wonder if they aren't showing bias towards Lexus. I can't see
any justification for listing the Lincoln MKS and not also including
the Lexus GS.
Ed
larry moe 'n curly
C. E. White wrote:
>
> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
> vehicles. See:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
>
> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
Corolla and Geo Prizm?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/3220352935_5d568cf3dd_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3220407679_f58946b017_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/3220291121_cd8eb87a00_o.gif
hls
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c71fcfc7-ae26-43ee...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> Corolla and Geo Prizm?
Statistics can be used to prejudice almost anything, I guess.
Mike Hunter
them they could save a lot of money by purchasing the domestic version of
those vehicles rather than the Jap twin.
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:EeCdnYE2Jad5OpzW...@giganews.com...
dr_jeff
> Seems to me CR would have better served its subscribe if it had informed
> them they could save a lot of money by purchasing the domestic version of
> those vehicles rather than the Jap twin.
They have.
Jeff
Derek Gee
news:c71fcfc7-ae26-43ee...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> Corolla and Geo Prizm?
They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was wrong
at CR.
Derek
dr_jeff
The same is true at C and D. They seem to usually favor the German and
Asian cars over the US cars. Not always though.
Ashton Crusher
really realistic to call something a "clunker"? And do they take into
account how much less that "clunker" might cost to buy compared to
their favorite import?
After looking thru the article I agree it's rather striking how they
padded the "top 10" with the same vehicle under two names.
C. E. White
data. But as to your comment, the editors at CR may be biased, but they are
not stupid.
Ed
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c71fcfc7-ae26-43ee...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Jim_Higgins
Assuage your guilt, angst, frustration and general weirdness. Send me
all your money (only non-revocable letters of credit and/or gold,
silver, jewels, platinum, etc.). This generous offer valid only for a
limited time Mikey.
--
Islam Delenda Est
Andrew Rossmann
dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was wrong
> at CR.
CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
it's in the subscribers.
Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
CR rates the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan as having higher reliablity than
the Accord or Camry. (Toyota is nice if you want your car to drive
100mph on it's own!)
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
hls
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
> wrong at CR.
>
> Derek
Just a point...."largely the same parts" may not be the same as equivalent
vehicles.
I am not defending CR.. I have held them up to doubt many times on other
types
of products, where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
Derek Gee
"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <4b020191$0$5114$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>> wrong
>> at CR.
>
> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> it's in the subscribers.
There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job in
trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
quality.
> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
Very, very true. Even though the dealerships are independent entities,
people still see them as "Ford". If they treat the buyer poorly, it will be
reflected in the surveys.
> CR rates the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan as having higher reliablity than
> the Accord or Camry. (Toyota is nice if you want your car to drive
> 100mph on it's own!)
A very impressive achievement! Note that Lincoln MKZ is also higher rated
than the Lexus and Acura equivalents by CR.
Derek
Derek Gee
>
> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>> wrong at CR.
>>
>> Derek
>
> Just a point...."largely the same parts" may not be the same as equivalent
> vehicles.
The only differences were the outer skins. They were the same platform
underneath.
> I am not defending CR.. I have held them up to doubt many times on other
> types
> of products, where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
I've always worried about a company that reviews toasters rating
sophisticated devices, particularly consumer electronics and automobiles.
But they do have the advantage of being advertisement free...
Derek
larry moe 'n curly
Mike Hunter wrote:
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:c71fcfc7-ae26-43ee...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>> So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
>> Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
>> Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/3220352935_5d568cf3dd_o.gif
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3220407679_f58946b017_o.gif
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/3220291121_cd8eb87a00_o.gif
>
> Seems to me CR would have better served its subscribe if it had informed
> them they could save a lot of money by purchasing the domestic version of
> those vehicles rather than the Jap twin.
It seems that you're drunk and senile again, Foghorn, because the
links show that CR has done exactly that. They actually favor
American brands when they're competitive with foreign ones, as
demonstrated by their gushing over the pretty good but not best Ford
Fusion, and back when Toyota's T100 pickup was introduced in the US,
the cover of CR headlined, "Ford Beats Toyota" (but the T-100 was
pretty bad compared to the Ford).
larry moe 'n curly
Derek Gee wrote:
> "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> > it's in the subscribers.
>
> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job in
> trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
> quality.
JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
>
> > Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
> > toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
Then I'd expect luxury car brands to fare better because of their
dealerships, so why have Cadlllac and Rolls-Royce long fared so poorly
in reliability ratings? And Toyota's brand with the highest
reliability is budget Scion, not luxury Lexus.
larry moe 'n curly
Derek Gee wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:c71fcfc7-ae26-43ee...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> > Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> > Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was wrong
> at CR.
Please explain. Here are the reliability ratings of the 626 and
Probe:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/4114348350_3d1e3833c8_o.jpg
C. E. White
"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
> dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com says...
>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the
>> Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using
>> largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher
>> reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something
>> was wrong
>> at CR.
>
> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> it's in the subscribers.
I don't completely agree with this. The CR survey is very simplistic.
A lot of the questions depend on the responder making value
judgements. These judgements are based on the experience / beliefs /
opinions of the reponders. These factors are at least partially
influenced by what CR says about a given vehicle. If CR says a Camry
is reliable, then the respondents are more likely to shade their
answers in that direction. Probably a small shading, but given the
tiny differences in the results, it does not take much to seem
significant given CRs method of reporting the results. The little
shaded circle methods makes it seem that the differences are much more
significant than they really are. The difference between the horrible
black dot rating and the wonderful red dot rating can be trivial in
some cases. So small shadings in the responses can look like major
differnces, when in fact they are not. And then there is the whole
problem of the pool of responders. I would argue that the readership
of CR is biased towards a group of people who agree with the CR
editorial opinions. Since CR has shown a marked prefernce for Toyota
products over recent years, I believe the CR reasdership is more
likely to be disposed towards believing Toyotas are more reliable than
other cars. I believe this will lead towards a bias in the survey
results. Again, maybe a small bias, but that is all it takes to
completely screw up the results as interperted by the CR editiorial
staff.
> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long
> way
> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
Definitely true. This probably explainis why Lexus always has high
ratings. However, it probably works against Toyota, since Toyota
dealerships are usually rated worse than average in other surveys.
Ed
Vic Smith
Toyota/Honda owners will disagree with what you said.
But you hit the high spots.
Of course CR will never release the number of survey respondents of
each make of car.
Might look funny to see that 90% of the survey respondents are
reporting on Toyotas/Hondas.
Why subscribe to a magazine then not follow its advice about your
biggest purchase?
CR does do some good stuff on smaller purchases and other matters
though, so it is a useful tool.
That's why I was a long-time subscriber.
Nowadays there are net resources with product reviews.
As you said, the use of colored circles dots is a big weakness.
More detail on what was repaired and actual costs could very well save
some subscribers money when they select their car - especially used
cars.
I get that detail through other sources (mechanics, net complaints,
forums, etc) and do very well with costs on my used cars.
Chevys. The knocks from CR on Chevys and other cars have made them a
real bargain on the used car market - if you are even a bit
analytical.
The JD Powers surveys are often knocked, but they are professional
surveys paid for by the auto manufacturers. Last I looked the
individual owners surveyed are paid 20 bucks to tell the truth.
BTW, I never filled out a CR survey.
Even when my Chevys were young enough to qualify, I didn't want to
mess up a good thing by reporting no problems.
FYI, it seems CR is now a free magazine, at least for me.
I let my subscription lapse about 5 years ago, but continue to get the
magazine in the mail. Along with occasional letters asking me to
re-subscribe. I guess they think sending me the magazines is an
enticement to subscribe. Not a good sales practice overall, I think.
--Vic
cl...@snyder.on.ca
The same "platform" does not mean the same floorpan, or even
necessarily the same wheelbase or track. It means it shares a
"layout".
Derek Gee
>
>
> Derek Gee wrote:
>> "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> > CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
>> > it's in the subscribers.
>>
>> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job
>> in
>> trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
>> quality.
>
> JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
> cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
> reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
Not so. They have a much more accurate survey questionaire than the CR one.
>> > Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
>> > toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
>
> Then I'd expect luxury car brands to fare better because of their
> dealerships, so why have Cadlllac and Rolls-Royce long fared so poorly
> in reliability ratings?
Where have you seen any published reliability data on RR? They aren't in
any published survey I've ever seen.
>And Toyota's brand with the highest
> reliability is budget Scion, not luxury Lexus.
Wrong, Scion is WAY below industry average in the 2009 JD Power
Dependability study!
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2009043.pdf
Derek
Derek Gee
What do you mean please explain? Can't you read? Look at the '89
4-cylinders for instance. The Ford's have extra black dots (or other lower
ratings) the Mazda 626 doesn't. (Cooling, electrical, A/C, clutch,
integrity, paint-trim) Why is the Ford version rated worse? They were made
in the same plant with the same platform parts.
CR did rate the Mazda auto-trans worse, which is also wrong, being the same
unit as the Ford.
Derek
dr_jeff
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:f152deef-37b4-4a7e...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Derek Gee wrote:
>>> "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
>>>> it's in the subscribers.
>>> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job
>>> in
>>> trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
>>> quality.
>> JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
>> cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
>> reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
>
> Not so. They have a much more accurate survey questionaire than the CR one.
How is the JD Power survey more accurate? Has there been a study on
this? It may look better on paper, but it may not better in real life.
Jeff
dr_jeff
It could be the expectations of the cars. In addition, a different group
of people might be more likely to buy Mazdas than Fords, leading to
different responses.
Jeff
Derek Gee
news:mu99g5hv5h4cfi4v5...@4ax.com...
Not so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_platform
D
Derek Gee
news:JOKdnUJqm4PvM5nW...@giganews.com...
From what I've been able to gather about the IQS and VDS surveys, it's a 44
point questionaire with specific questions about stuff like handling,
braking, seats, audio systems etc. It's better than just asking which
areas did you have a "problem" with and asking the user to check a single
box.
Here's some very specific criticism of the CR methodology I recently ran
across:
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/shortcomings.php
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/cr_survey.php
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/anomalies.php
Derek
dr_jeff
The website is a competitor to CR for car data. How reliable do you
think its criticisms are?
George Orwell
has tested just about every conceivable products except guns.
Sure guns are tested, evaluated and reported on by enthusiast magazines &
American Rifleman, but those are hardly unbiased sources of information. CU
does not test guns because they do not like them, period. Despite this
fact, they would do the public a favor to report on guns. They are a
household item in 30 to 40% of homes, so it is irrational of CU to ignore
this product. CU should at least bring to light the relative inherent
safety of revolvers compared to the hazard of the pistol. In particular,
the danger of the original Berreta 9 which lacked a magazine safety,
leading to the deaths of several children who played with loaded pistols.
Avoid pistols and urge your local police department to make revolvers
required for sworn officers so they will not accidentally shoot arrestees
by accident as frequently happens when they carry pistols. Also, pistols
"jam" and revolvers never do not to mention pistols have bad triggers and
are inaccurate. Believe you me, these are factual statements.
Guns have done more to keep us safe in our homes than all the police
forces. And without being fired. Criminals know guns are in a lot of homes,
but they don't know which homes. So they leave homes alone. This is not the
case in foreign countries that ban citizens from keeping guns. Likewise, in
right to concealed carry states, street crime is reduced for the same
reason. Guns make for a polite society.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
larry moe 'n curly
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:f152deef-37b4-4a7e...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job
> in trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
> quality.
>
> > JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
> > cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
> > reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
>
> Not so. They have a much more accurate survey questionaire than the CR one.
Show me. I've gotten the CR survey a couple of times, and it
basically asked if I had any problems in the past year in any of the
areas listed in their car reliability survey tables. What does JD
Powers ask? A Mar. 2004 US News magazine article said they lump too
many aspects of the cars together:
"One gripe: In the new car quality survey, a car's basic
attributes, gas mileage, and the placement of cup holders,
for example, are lumped in with problems like rattles, buzzes,
and broken equipment."
And the fact that JD Powers has rated Cadillac and pre-Ford Jaguar
high in reliability proves that something's been seriously wrong with
their surveys.
> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
>
> > Then I'd expect luxury car brands to fare better because of their
> > dealerships, so why have Cadlllac and Rolls-Royce long fared so poorly
> > in reliability ratings?
>
> Where have you seen any published reliability data on RR? They aren't in
> any published survey I've ever seen.
RR is pretty famous for bad quality, and I even heard an owner
complain about his to my boss. Name a British car that isn't
unreliable. And how do you explain Jaguar's high ranking in the
Powers' surveys? You know Jaguar, the brand so bad that when Ford
took over the company, one of its ads touted a brand-new wiring
harness? Then there's the Powers' quality award given to the horrible
cable TV company here. Really, you need to demonstrate that Powers
has any credibility at all, especially when their sources of revenue
are a mystery or could be from the very industries whose products and
services they rank.
> > And Toyota's brand with the highest reliability is budget Scion, not luxury Lexus.
>
> Wrong, Scion is WAY below industry average in the 2009 JD Power
> Dependability study!
> http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2009043.pdf
Wrong, Scion is WAY above industry average in the more trustworthy,
non-sellout 2009 Consumer Reports reliability survey:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/4118564115_3013ca4784_o.gif
Why shouldn't Scion score high when they have only three models, two
of them based on the Toyota Yaris, which is rated high in reliability
(Yet Consumer Reports doesn't recommend it because it scores too
poorly in performance).
larry moe 'n curly
C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:MPG.256cdade...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> > it's in the subscribers.
>
> I don't completely agree with this. The CR survey is very simplistic.
> A lot of the questions depend on the responder making value
> judgements. These judgements are based on the experience / beliefs /
> opinions of the reponders.
I don't believe subjectivity affects the reliability ratings much
because CR also asks owners if they'd buy the same vehicle again, and
some vehicles where the owners overwhelmingly answer yes are ranked
among the least reliable. IOW the very same people who love their
cars admit that their cars have been troublesome, the Chevy Corvette
being a prime example.
larry moe 'n curly
Derek Gee wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:d1ac9580-a06c-4691...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> > Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> > Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
> wrong at CR.
>
> > Please explain. Here are the reliability ratings of the 626 and
> > Probe:
> >
> > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/4114348350_3d1e3833c8_o.jpg
>
> What do you mean please explain? Can't you read? Look at the '89
> 4-cylinders for instance. The Ford's have extra black dots (or other lower
> ratings) the Mazda 626 doesn't. (Cooling, electrical, A/C, clutch,
> integrity, paint-trim) Why is the Ford version rated worse? They were made
> in the same plant with the same platform parts.
Can't you read? For some components, the 626 rated worse than the
Probe.
> CR did rate the Mazda auto-trans worse, which is also wrong, being the same
> unit as the Ford.
Why the difference then? I'm going to blame small survey samples,
which tend to lead to wider variations in averages -- notice the * in
some spots, indicating insufficient data.
You're not doing a Robert McNamara on statistics, are you? ;)
cl...@snyder.on.ca
You need to remember too, the JD Power report is not so much about
reliability as "initial quality " - at least that's the report most
often referred to. That means what the car was like when first
purchased - has little to do with what you had 6 months later. A new
Caddy is a sight to behold, and for the first couple weeks you may be
"in heaven" - from the experience of several friends, that turns to a
minimum of "purgatory" within 6 months.
Derek Gee
Valid enough. I took a year of statistics in college. The True Delta guy
is explaining how he plans to avoid those issues with his site. From what
I've seen of his site (because I checked it out after reading those pages),
his sample sizes are still too small for my liking.
Derek
Derek Gee
> Derek Gee wrote:
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:f152deef-37b4-4a7e...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job
>> in trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems
>> better
>> quality.
>>
>> > JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
>> > cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
>> > reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
>>
>> Not so. They have a much more accurate survey questionaire than the CR
>> one.
>
> Show me. I've gotten the CR survey a couple of times, and it
> basically asked if I had any problems in the past year in any of the
> areas listed in their car reliability survey tables. What does JD
> Powers ask? A Mar. 2004 US News magazine article said they lump too
> many aspects of the cars together:
I wish I could show you. I've only been able to fill out Power surveys on
auto options. I haven't been able to get my hands on a IQS or VDS survey.
I've had to rely on other descriptions of them.
> "One gripe: In the new car quality survey, a car's basic
> attributes, gas mileage, and the placement of cup holders,
> for example, are lumped in with problems like rattles, buzzes,
> and broken equipment."
>
> And the fact that JD Powers has rated Cadillac and pre-Ford Jaguar
> high in reliability proves that something's been seriously wrong with
> their surveys.
I don't remember pre-Ford Jags ever being rated high in reliability
anywhere. Do you remember which year you saw this?
I tend to believe the Power survey due to the better methodology, plus I
have two first hand owner reports of failures (disabled) of Scion models.
Granted, that's only a personal sample of two, but it fits the pattern of
the Power data - Scions suck. My guess is that even though it's based on a
Yaris, the customization is causing quality problems. That's a truism with
automakers, the more options, the more potential for problems.
Derek
Derek Gee
>
>
> Derek Gee wrote:
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:d1ac9580-a06c-4691...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
>> > Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
>> > Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>> wrong at CR.
>>
>> > Please explain. Here are the reliability ratings of the 626 and
>> > Probe:
>> >
>> > http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/4114348350_3d1e3833c8_o.jpg
>>
>> What do you mean please explain? Can't you read? Look at the '89
>> 4-cylinders for instance. The Ford's have extra black dots (or other
>> lower
>> ratings) the Mazda 626 doesn't. (Cooling, electrical, A/C, clutch,
>> integrity, paint-trim) Why is the Ford version rated worse? They were
>> made
>> in the same plant with the same platform parts.
>
> Can't you read? For some components, the 626 rated worse than the
> Probe.
Only the auto trans on the year I cited. Looking at some of the other
years, the pattern I cited generally holds. Only the Mazda auto-trans seems
to get picked on.
>> CR did rate the Mazda auto-trans worse, which is also wrong, being the
>> same
>> unit as the Ford.
>
> Why the difference then? I'm going to blame small survey samples,
> which tend to lead to wider variations in averages -- notice the * in
> some spots, indicating insufficient data.
Given how widely read and widely responded to that CR survey is, I doubt if
small survey samples are the problem, but I don't have access to the raw
numbers to prove that.
Derek
SMS
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> Corolla and Geo Prizm?
Because there's never been even the slightest bit of bias shown in
Consumer Reports' reviews. These complaints have always been sour grapes.
Ed Pawlowski
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> Because there's never been even the slightest bit of bias shown in
> Consumer Reports' reviews. These complaints have always been sour grapes.
How about other products? What CR calls a design defect, I've often called
a good feature. Their expectations differ too much from mine to be regarded
as meaningful.
Ed Pawlowski
> have two first hand owner reports of failures (disabled) of Scion models.
The problem with Powers is they rate "initial quality" I happen to own a
car rated very high by them for initial quality and they were correct; I was
very pleased with it for a while. Just about the time the warranty ran out
(at 18 months I had 36000 miles) the car started to deteriorate and has been
falling apart ever since. Lots of little things like switches that don't
work as well as big things like the transmission. Initial quality does not
equal durability.
Mike Hunter
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:nIGdnRSpQL__s5TW...@giganews.com...
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Sounds a whole lot like my Mystique. Love the car, but reliability is
NOT it's strong suit - mostly nickel and dime stuff since I do most of
my own repairs, but irritating at best. Being the high end V6 with all
the toys, it is NOT easy to work on either. Something about it's mixed
heritage I guess.
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
news:4b09c67c$0$22020$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> You should have know better than to buy an import ;)
>
>
Right, the Buick was imported from Canada
Derek Gee
No, Powers has TWO different studies, the IQS (Initial Quality Study), and
VDS (Vehicle Dependability Study). I pretty much ignore all of the IQS
surveys as most of the automakers are within a couple of defects per 100
vehicles of each other. It's the VDS that's the important one. Here's a
link to the 2009 study, go check it out...
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2009043.pdf
Derek
Derek Gee
Sure there's been bias. I've seen it with autos and I've seen with computer
reviews from many years ago. I've written to them about it, and I know
they've received many subscription cancellations due to their abuse of the
Big Three. I suspect that's why in the last few years they've begun to
spell out more carefully the differences between the autos, and stop the
practice of granting automatic Predicted Reliability ratings based on past
performance. No new vehicle should be given a rating until after a year has
passed and data has been gathered.
Derek
dr_jeff
But this is still a survey, with the limitations of a survey.
Plus, the study was with cars that were about 2 or 3 years old (2006
model year study done in Oct. 2008). It doesn't say how well cars hold
up after this period. What would be a far better study would be a study
of what is actually replaced by owners during the life of the car. It
would be a hard study to do.
Jeff
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
> vehicles. See:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clunker-cars-repairs-lifestyle-vehicles-clunkers_slide_2.html
>
> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> -Chevrolet Colorado
> -Segment: Pickup trucks
> -Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average -Overall Consumer
> Reports Rating: 41
> -Five-year cost of repairs: $798
I am now on my 4th 1992 Grand Whatever (this one is a Caravan) and it has
239,000 miles on it. It has some grunts and groans, but overall it's in
fairly decent shape for it's age and mileage. A freah shot of paint on the
hood, and a good wash and wax and I wouldn't be afraid to park it anywhere.
I knew when my wife bought our first 1992 (regular) Caravan in 1994 it was
a decently made vehicle. They suffered tranny problems because of soft
pieces in the trannies, but once that was corrected they turned out fairly
well.
My '94 LHS was also a decent car, and I wasn't afraid of driving it
anywhere. And no trans problem at all in that car.
Ashton Crusher
Both are just about worthless as far as guiding the consumer. The
difference between the Top rated Buick at 122 and the average at 170
is "per 100 cars". So for the ONE car owned by the consumer it's a
trivial difference of 0.48 problems, whether that's per year or over
the entire 3 years I couldn't tell. But in any case, anyone who gets
their panties in a bunch over that not quite half a problem needs to
get a hobby. You have to get way down toward the bottom to seen
enough difference in the numbers to get the least bit excited. If
they told you the COST instead of OCCURANCE it would be a whole lot
more useful. I also noticed their disclaimer about statistical
significance. Since they felt they needed to say it I'm guessing the
truth is that when looked at with the common statistical tests of
significance their survey isn't much better then toilet paper.
C. E. White
> Plus, the study was with cars that were about 2 or 3 years old (2006
> model year study done in Oct. 2008). It doesn't say how well cars
> hold up after this period. What would be a far better study would be
> a study of what is actually replaced by owners during the life of
> the car. It would be a hard study to do.
If you survey Customers this might be a hard survey. However if you
survey parts suppliers, it should be relatively easy. I've always
assumed manufacturers know the truth, but have no incentive to make it
public. I am certain that Ford and GM and Toyota and...all have a
pretty good idea of the reliability of each other's products. They
just aren't telling us...
Ed
larry moe 'n curly
Derek Gee wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7d7642f3-3295-4e59...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
CR itself often says samples are too small for valid results, and the
smaller the samples, generally the greater the variations.
You still haven't shown CR having a bias against American brands.
PerfectReign
etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:
> so it is irrational of CU to ignore
> this product. CU should at least bring to light the relative inherent
> safety of revolvers compared to the hazard of the pistol
I know I shouldn't respond to an anonymous troll, but...
I didn't know there *was* a difference between revolvers and pistols.
Aren't they the same?
--
perfectreign
www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com
a turn signal is a statement, not a request
PerfectReign
etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
Valid point.
As an example, back in the '80s when I read CR, I always noticed them
mentioning "cheap plastic" on GM interiors. I never knew what cheap
plastic meant as compared to non-cheap or expensive plastic. It is all
plastic.
In any case, I drove to work in my Chevy Avalanche, and then hopped into
a sub-compact Prius for a work trip with some of my staff. I drove the
Prius about twenty miles, which was something like 45 minutes one way and
about 30 the other way.
I see no difference between the car and my truck in terms of apparent
build quality. Granted the Prius is a low-end subcompact as compared to
my mid-level Avalanche. But the build quality appears about the same.
Ray O
"PerfectReign" <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@ecmplace.com...
Not quite. A revolver is a pistol but a pistol is not necessarily a
revolver. Kind of like saying a sedan is an automobile but an automobile is
not necessarily a sedan.
The person who originally posted about revolvers and pistols is either a
troll or has demonstrated an almost complete lack of knowledge of pistols
and revolvers.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Ed Pawlowski
>
> Aren't they the same?
>
Revolvers are like the old cowboy gun that have a rotating cylinder holding
the bullets. Think "Lone Ranger" A pistol can be a revolver, but it may be
of a design that holds a clip.
PerfectReign
etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:
>> I didn't know there *was* a difference between revolvers and pistols.
>>
>> Aren't they the same?
>>
>>
> Revolvers are like the old cowboy gun that have a rotating cylinder
> holding the bullets. Think "Lone Ranger" A pistol can be a revolver,
> but it may be of a design that holds a clip.
Yeah, I looked it up.
My bad.
I'm somewhat ignorant about guns. Unfortunately, my dad never showed me
squat. (Though I read his military records which showed he was an expert
marksman.)
I do come from a line of frontiersmen, which is hilarious that I've never
shot a gun in my life.
The guy in the checkered cap - third from the left - is my great-
grandfather.
http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/HakeRanch_300dpi_sm.jpg
That was on my mother's side. My dad's side were ranchers as well and my
grandfather apparently shot a rattler at some insane distance many years
back.
(Oh, and he was a Buick mechanic later on.)
Ed Pawlowski
> shot a gun in my life.
>
> The guy in the checkered cap - third from the left - is my great-
> grandfather.
>
> http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/HakeRanch_300dpi_sm.jpg
>
> That was on my mother's side. My dad's side were ranchers as well and my
> grandfather apparently shot a rattler at some insane distance many years
> back.
>
> (Oh, and he was a Buick mechanic later on.)
Great photo. Do you know where it was taken? What kind of car?
SMS
Consumer Reports values safety, reliability, and value. It's true that
there are other aspects of vehicles (and other products) that are often
more important to buyers than those three characteristics. I'd have
never bought several of the vehicles that I've purchased if I went
mainly by safety, reliability, and value. But that doesn't mean that
Consumer Reports is biased.
The most amusing claims of bias are when people get upset about their
surveys which ask owners of the product to rate the product that they've
purchased. Whether it's vehicles or wireless service, there's no reason
to believe that the owner or user of one product or service is more or
less likely to lie about their experience with the product or service
than the owner of a different product or service.
Derek Gee
Closest thing to that is dealership warranty and post-warranty info, and I
doubt you'll get any of that. Maybe some large fleet customers might share
info like that...
Derek
Derek Gee
news:3j4kg5ljsfads2bc2...@4ax.com...
You make a valid point in that it would very useful to know what are the
differences in the "problems" each make has. It makes a big difference if
the problems are minor, such as leak or part recall, or major - like a
transmission failure.
Derek
dr_jeff
Yet the way cars and trucks in large fleets is not the same as regular
people.
Derek Gee
Sure I have. They totally screwed the Ford Probe versus the Mazda 626,
whether intentionally or not, and FAILED to correct the statistics. It's
obvious something was wrong, but they did nothing for years - until enough
people complained and they finally got burned by a vehicle being unjustly
given a "reliable" rating ahead of having any data to prove that it was.
Total bullcrap. The only vehicles that were given the false ratings were
Japanese.
Derek
SMS
> Sure there's been bias. I've seen it with autos and I've seen with computer
> reviews from many years ago. I've written to them about it, and I know
> they've received many subscription cancellations due to their abuse of the
> Big Three.
LOL, sure you do.
Even when there are two very similar vehicles with different nameplates,
there are valid reasons for differences in the results of the CR surveys
of owners.
C. E. White
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> Because there's never been even the slightest bit of bias shown in
>>> Consumer Reports' reviews. These complaints have always been sour
>>> grapes.
>>
>> How about other products? What CR calls a design defect, I've often
>> called a good feature. Their expectations differ too much from mine to
>> be regarded as meaningful.
>
> Consumer Reports values safety, reliability, and value. It's true that
> there are other aspects of vehicles (and other products) that are often
> more important to buyers than those three characteristics. I'd have never
> bought several of the vehicles that I've purchased if I went mainly by
> safety, reliability, and value. But that doesn't mean that Consumer
> Reports is biased.
Sure they are, you even said so, just in different words - "Consumer Reports
values safety, reliability, and value."
> The most amusing claims of bias are when people get upset about their
> surveys which ask owners of the product to rate the product that they've
> purchased. Whether it's vehicles or wireless service, there's no reason to
> believe that the owner or user of one product or service is more or less
> likely to lie about their experience with the product or service than the
> owner of a different product or service.
I am not saying that anyone is lying about there responses. I am arguing
that the sample group is not statistically sounds and that it is likely that
the people who respond to the surveys are likely to parrot the CR opinons.
This is not lying, it is human nature at work.
Ed
C. E. White
Of course there are reasons, one is that the survey is faulty, another is
that the CR survey is basically an opinion poll, not a data collection
exercise.
Ed
Canuck57
LMAO. I bought one too in 2001, and sold it in 2004. Last GM I will
ever buy. Had transmission issues early on, many bandaid type repairs,
eventually told them to put a new one in as we are getting close to
lemon law - hint - hint. After being jacked around, I vowed it was my
last GM.
hls
"C. E. White" <cewhite...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:FIedna90p7riJ5HW...@earthlink.com...
Might it also be that these types of vehicles, although similar, are not
identical,
and that they might actually be viewed differently by the buyer? Dealership
handling of problems and warranty issues can certainly have a major impact
on
the degree of satisfaction one might have with the unit.
SMS
> Sure they are, you even said so, just in different words - "Consumer
> Reports values safety, reliability, and value."
No, they're not biased because they evaluate all of the vehicles to the
same set of standards.
> I am not saying that anyone is lying about there responses. I am arguing
> that the sample group is not statistically sounds and that it is likely
> that the people who respond to the surveys are likely to parrot the CR
> opinons. This is not lying, it is human nature at work.
The sample size is very large. The questions on the surveys are very
specific, asking about problems that the owner has had with the vehicle.
They aren't general touchy-feely questions where the owner has the
opportunity to parrot CR's evaluations and recommendations. The surveys
about reliability and the articles evaluating the products are two very
different animals.
SMS
> Of course there are reasons, one is that the survey is faulty, another
> is that the CR survey is basically an opinion poll, not a data
> collection exercise.
Clearly you've never seen one of the CR surveys if you think it's an
opinion poll.
SMS
<snip>
> Might it also be that these types of vehicles, although similar, are not
> identical,
> and that they might actually be viewed differently by the buyer?
> Dealership
> handling of problems and warranty issues can certainly have a major
> impact on
> the degree of satisfaction one might have with the unit.
It's those things, plus it's the type of buyer that buys say a Corolla
verus a Prizm, and how they take care of the vehicle. Toyota buyers tend
to me more highly educated, higher income, and more likely to follow the
maintenance schedule, which would result in fewer Corolla problems.
Tom
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0d55be$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net...
I hope you don't really believe that. If you do I think your ego and
elitist attitude need some adjustment, your blanket statement is beyond
believeable sounds like a teenager.
Mike Hunter
vehicle buyer.
When I was in retail that was one of the things we loved about them, it made
is easy for us to get an extra 20% to 30% out of them when we sold them a
car than we could get from the buyers in our domestic brand stores LOL
"Tom" <t...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hejt04$8ji$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
SMS
> I hope you don't really believe that. If you do I think your ego and
> elitist attitude need some adjustment, your blanket statement is beyond
> believeable sounds like a teenager.
So you believe that the demographics of a Toyota buyer are the same as
the demographics of a Chevrolet buyer?
It may well be elitist for a car-buyer to have shunned a Geo/Chevy Prizm
in favor of a Toyota Corolla, but the sales figures of each model prove
that there had to have been reasons that the Corolla sold so much better
than the Prizm. Up until recently, one reason to have chosen a Chevy
over a Toyota would have been the wider availability of warranty
service, but at least in my area so many Chevy dealers have closed that
the Toyota now wins in that regard. The Corolla and Prizm were
comparably priced, the Prizm has a lower MSRP, but the Corolla was
heavily discounted, often to well below invoice.
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
I've seen their surveys back when I subscribed. They are little
better then opinion polls. You can say anything you want, you don't
document anything, there is no attempt to make the sample
statistically representative of anything, they just take the answers
from whichever subscribers feel like replying. If you paid $2000 more
for your Toyota then for a comparable Chevy you an be sure many of the
respondents are going to sugarcoat their experience, after all, they
are not going to want to face up to the fact that every Toyota
dealership has a big repair shop in the back just like every Chevy
dealer does.
Ed Pawlowski
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
> Might it also be that these types of vehicles, although similar, are not
> identical,
> and that they might actually be viewed differently by the buyer?
> Dealership
> handling of problems and warranty issues can certainly have a major impact
> on
> the degree of satisfaction one might have with the unit.
I recall a survey of the Mitsubishi Eclipse and the Dodge and Plymouth
version. They were ranked by consumers (not necessarily owners) to have
different quality levels. 1 Mitsu, 2 Dodge, 3 Plymouth. It was strictly
perception, not based on real facts. Some of the people surveyed had no idea
they were identical cars.
cavi...@my-deja.com
> I hope you don't really believe that. If you do I think your ego and
> elitist attitude need some adjustment, your blanket statement is beyond
> believeable sounds like a teenager.
You can read the exact same remarks in the archives of the Saturn
newsgroup, where he trolled for a decade and compiled thousands of
posts attacking Saturn and other domestic automobiles under various
accounts. The best ones are where he contradicts himself and even
ignores (or attacks) Consumer Reports when it didn't support his
agenda. CR is like any other magazine. The editors are human. They
have biases. They know their demographic and cater to it very well,
because that's where their paycheck is. Their surveys aren't randomy
sampled or scientific in any way. The results are not peer reviewed
and they don't publish any statistical information like sample size,
margin of error, standard deviation, nada. In the case of their red
and black circles for reliability, they don't even tell you what they
mean on an absolute scale; usually only in percent above/below
average. That kind of information isn't all that helpful unless you
know what average is. 40% above average when average is near zero is
not a good way to scale your data to show people how many problems to
expect over a typical period of ownership. More importantly, they
don't tell you much about the severity or cost of the problems, only
what categories are most typical. Oxygen sensor, engine oil sludge or
worse? Who knows.
That's not to say the reviews and reliability results aren't any good,
but that they really aren't all that different from any other auto
magazine. If you find you generally agree with them, great, but that
doesn't make their results any more meaningful or accurate. I like
Consumer Reports for the most part, but the non-random surveys and
dumbed down results are not impressive by any statistical standard.
Their reviews are usually reasonable enough. Usually they seem close
to the mark, but sometimes they miss badly. Don't rely on them as the
only resource and you'll be fine. For example, I'm still not sure how
their 32mpg city fuel economy rating of the new Prius is anything
close to "real world". We never owned a hybrid before and from our
first tank it's been over 50mpg both estimated from the trip computer
and calculated from gas fill ups. No fancy driving habits or super
inflated tires or anything. Many other owners report the same. As
with everything, don't always believe what you read.
cavi...@my-deja.com
Eventually, Consumer Reports lumped corporate twins together so that
the results were the same for all siblings. As it was, it showed the
very real problems inherent to their surveys and sampling.
SMS
> Their surveys aren't randomy
> sampled or scientific in any way. The results are not peer reviewed
> and they don't publish any statistical information like sample size,
> margin of error, standard deviation, nada.
Of course they do. They always state the sample size, and if they don't
have a sufficiently large sample for a specific product then they leave
it out, as you can see in every one of their surveys, including the most
recent wireless carrier surveys.
Claims of bias are pure sour grapes. A few people that buy a product get
all upset when their choice is not validated by independent entities. No
where was such an attitude more prevalent than for Saturn owners which
could never accept the fact that all the marketing hype about the brand
was not supported by the statistical reports of reliability from
Consumer Reports and J.D. Power. You of course are well aware of this
behavior since you were one of those that engaged in it.
SMS
> I recall a survey of the Mitsubishi Eclipse and the Dodge and Plymouth
> version. They were ranked by consumers (not necessarily owners) to have
> different quality levels.
The perception of consumers versus responses to specific questions
regarding owner problems are two very different things.
There seems to be an idea that the Consumer Reports surveys of
reliability consist of questions like "Do you think xyz is a reliable
vehicle" when in fact the surveys are limited to specific questions
regarding the reliability of specific sub-systems of the vehicle.
SMS
> If you paid $2000 more
> for your Toyota then for a comparable Chevy you an be sure many of the
> respondents are going to sugarcoat their experience, after all, they
> are not going to want to face up to the fact that every Toyota
> dealership has a big repair shop in the back just like every Chevy
> dealer does.
And there we have the extent of the proof that CR has some inherent bias.
Of course the reality is that no one has ever suggested that a Toyota
owner is more likely to sugar-coat their experience than a Chevy owner.
In fact you could argue that the Toyota owner is more likely to complain
about problems because they have higher expectations.
And of course there has never been anything close to a $2000 difference
in identical vehicles, identically equipped, with identical warranties,
sold through different channels. There were MSRPs that were a few
hundred dollars apart, and street prices that were even fewer dollars apart.
Ed Pawlowski
> owner is more likely to sugar-coat their experience than a Chevy owner. In
> fact you could argue that the Toyota owner is more likely to complain
> about problems because they have higher expectations.
I'm not so sure. People often over pay for things and swear it is a great
product at a great price because they don't want others to think less of
them or admit they made a mistake. No different than proudly wearing a shirt
with a little alligator logo while not getting caught wearing on with the
Sears logo.
SMS
The number of people that don't want to admit that something they bought
has problems, simply because they paid a high price for it, is offset by
the number of people that complain more about any problems because they
paid a high price for it. In any case, the number of people that are so
inclined to exhibit these behaviors is very small.
PerfectReign
etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:
>> The guy in the checkered cap - third from the left - is my great-
>> grandfather.
>>
>> http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/HakeRanch_300dpi_sm.jpg
>>
>> That was on my mother's side. My dad's side were ranchers as well and
>> my grandfather apparently shot a rattler at some insane distance many
>> years back.
>>
>> (Oh, and he was a Buick mechanic later on.)
>
> Great photo. Do you know where it was taken? What kind of car?
The photo was taken in 1904, we think. It was up at my great-great
uncle's ranch in Worland, Wyoming. (Lee Seymour Hake was my great
grandfather and the guy driving the car was my great-great uncle, Ben
Franklin Hake.)
I have no clue what kind of car it was. Notice the gun holster on the
spare tire.
--
perfectreign
www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com
a turn signal is a statement, not a request
Ed Pawlowski
> has problems, simply because they paid a high price for it, is offset by
> the number of people that complain more about any problems because they
> paid a high price for it. In any case, the number of people that are so
> inclined to exhibit these behaviors is very small.
I don't have figures, nor do I have the inclination to research it, but I
think the number may be much higher than you think. Perhaps there is a
psychology major lurking here with real numbers.
SMS
I would love to see some data that proved that a Chevy owner filling out
a CR survey is more likely to put down problems that they've had, than a
Toyota owner filling out the same survey.
In any case, it's rather immaterial. You're not going to get any other
reliability survey that has such a large sample size with such a
correspondingly small margin of error.
The Consumer Reports test drives and evaluations are another story. Is
it bias to give more weight to reliability, safety, and value (which
favors companies like Toyota and Honda)?
Vic Smith
wrote:
Sure there is. I recall reading a study many years ago that people
commonly lie about certain things.
At that time ('70's I think) 2 of the top things they would lie about
is how much they paid for their house (more than they actually paid)
and the length in time of their commute (less than actual.)
I forgot the 3rd thing. Probably dick size or pissing distance.
My personal experience is that people are far more likely to brag
about themselves than to complain about their car selection
shortcomings.
Jesus, we've all heard of "keeping up with the Jones" and seen it in
acton.
Not getting into statistical analysis methods, I'll note the CR has
NEVER given sampling sizes on a model basis. Only total surveys.
I am perfectly willing to be corrected on that.
And I won't make any claims about those numbers beyond the fact that
they could reveal a built in bias that is common in self-selected
surveys. Won't even say there is a useful element to the bias in the
end. Because I happen to think CR got it pretty right, and the bias
is a side issue in the end.
When I worked with a number of yuppies driving Hondas, I was more than
once asked for advice on CV joints by the very same people who would
swear their car was flawless. I never got on people about what they
drove, so they trusted me.
BTW, I think CR dropped CV joint problems from their survey when those
were still a significant expense/problem.
Claimed they weren't significant. I won't swear by any of that
though. Recollection, which is often flawed. I do recall looking at
my survey when I heard about it and there was no way to report CV
joint issues. Maybe my recall is flawed there too.
Personally, I think CR is a valuable resource despite any bias, and
also that they hammered some domestic cars by using a flawed
methodology of quality measurement.
They skewed their valuations in many middle cases - intentionally or
not - but got it real close to right on the highs on lows.
People don't keep buying dogs, and dogs bark.
A big part of that was useful to consumers, and part of it was plain
bias against the Big 3.
I don't have any sympathy for the Big 3. CR put the writing on the
wall, and they chose to ignore it. Anybody selling a product knows
that perception is a big part of realty. Big 3 did little to change
the perceptions.
As an aside, I replaced a half shaft in a '85 Cavalier I had.
Only time I had a CV joint issue. Anecdote of the day.
And I still buy Chevys.
--Vic
Ashton Crusher
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:18:37 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
>wrote:
>
>wall, and they chose to ignore it. Anybody selling a product knows
>that perception is a big part of realty.
That, in large part, goes to the heart of the CU bias. Most of their
respondents were already of the mind set that domestic was crap and
imports were perfect. And they repeat that when they fill in their
survey forms. I see people all the time who buy an "import" for no
reason other then they don't want a domestic. And that includes
people who have run their previous domestics for way past 100K with no
more problems then the imports have. In other cases it's in spite of
having owned imports that fell apart around them. When someone has a
problem with their Toyota they just shrug it off, when someone has a
problem with their domestic they can't stop badmouthing it long enough
to breath. Go visit an import newsgroup and look at post after post
about blown head gaskets. Yet no one cares. But EVERYONE knows that
Ford 3.8's had some head gasket issues. Ditto for the Sludged up
Toyota engines - no one cares, after all, it's a Toyota!!!
SMS
> That, in large part, goes to the heart of the CU bias. Most of their
> respondents were already of the mind set that domestic was crap and
> imports were perfect. And they repeat that when they fill in their
> survey forms.
You don't understand how the survey works. They aren't asking for a
subscriber's opinion of one product versus another, they're asking a
series of very specific questions that ask what, if any, problems an
owner has had with their vehicle.
There seems to be a perception that the CU survey ask questions like
'which is more reliable, a Toyota or a Chevy.'
I see people all the time who buy an "import" for no
> reason other then they don't want a domestic. And that includes
> people who have run their previous domestics for way past 100K with no
> more problems then the imports have. In other cases it's in spite of
> having owned imports that fell apart around them. When someone has a
> problem with their Toyota they just shrug it off, when someone has a
> problem with their domestic they can't stop badmouthing it long enough
> to breath.
Actually it's the opposite. The Toyota owner with a problem is upset
because they have the mindset of 'hey this is a Toyota, I'm not supposed
to have these problems,' while the Chevy owner shrugs it off with "well
it's a GM product, I expected this.'
In any case the number of owners that would lie when asked questions
regarding specific sub-systems of their vehicle, is small. No one has
ever shown any bias in the Consumer Reports surveys, either by the
respondents, or in the questions that are asked. It's all sour grapes
when someone complains. The complaint is usually along the line of 'well
_I_ never had xyz problem, so that means the survey is bogus.' These
people don't understand statistics or the necessity of a large sample
size in order to have valid data.
cavi...@my-deja.com
> cavil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Their surveys aren't randomy
> > sampled or scientific in any way. The results are not peer reviewed
> > and they don't publish any statistical information like sample size,
> > margin of error, standard deviation, nada.
>
> Of course they do. They always state the sample size, and if they don't
> have a sufficiently large sample for a specific product then they leave
> it out, as you can see in every one of their surveys, including the most
> recent wireless carrier surveys.
I'll bite. I'm looking at the April, 2009 auto issue. Let's take the
Ford Fusion on page 89. I see lots of red circles. I'm not seeing
them state any numbers aside from the model year and the "6" in V6.
No sample size for this model is given, though you claim it is always
stated. No margin of error for the reliability projection. Nothing
of statistical value whatsoever. You must still be getting the
special edition? Please share.
> Claims of bias are pure sour grapes. A few people that buy a product get
> all upset when their choice is not validated by independent entities. No
> where was such an attitude more prevalent than for Saturn owners which
> could never accept the fact that all the marketing hype about the brand
> was not supported by the statistical reports of reliability from
> Consumer Reports and J.D. Power. You of course are well aware of this
> behavior since you were one of those that engaged in it.
Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway. For
example, as you've apparently forgotten, the SL/SW series usually did
reasonably well in reliability, according to Consumer Reports. In
fact, according to the April, 2001 issue, every single year of the 8
listed was average (4) or above average (4) and had check marks for
their "reliability verdict". So there's no sour grapes to be had
there, but of course, I can't tell you how accurate those results
are. That's because, again, no statistical information whatsoever is
provided. As for the original topic, you're free to believe there is
no bias at Consumer Reports. You can believe the same about Fox News
and any other media outlet, too. The fact is they are all run by
editors and management that have a bias to keep their jobs, in
addition to any policy and personal biases they may have. That they
don't bother to support their reliability circles with any statistical
details should make any skeptic wonder why. In the age of websites,
the lack of space in the print version is no longer a good excuse. Is
there an organizational policy bias against domestic autos? Probably
not. That doesn't make their reviews and reliability results unbiased.
cavi...@my-deja.com
Hi Vic!
> Not getting into statistical analysis methods, I'll note the CR has
> NEVER given sampling sizes on a model basis. Only total surveys.
> I am perfectly willing to be corrected on that.
You won't be.
> And I won't make any claims about those numbers beyond the fact that
> they could reveal a built in bias that is common in self-selected
> surveys. Won't even say there is a useful element to the bias in the
> end. Because I happen to think CR got it pretty right, and the bias
> is a side issue in the end.
> --Vic
While they provide nothing for statistical information on specific
models, they probably do have enough data to see basic trends. You
can find some interesting things if you dig into the charts and
numbers they bury in the print. For example, over the 7 years that is
a typical length of new car ownership, the average Ford has roughly 5
issues a CR reader would report in a survey, about the same as Nissan
or Hyundai. The average Honda/Toyota owner would have roughly 3
problems reported by a CR subscriber. (I'll even give a margin of
error of 1 problem, as the chart was small and integrating in my head
is subject to mistakes these days). Granted, these could be minor or
major problems, covered under warrantly or very expensive. There's no
way to know from CR. Also, you still have the issue of self-sampling
and and a non-scientific survey method. See the Chicago Tribune's
"Dewey Defeats Truman" case study on why not to use data obtained in
this manner...
Ashton Crusher
wrote:
>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> That, in large part, goes to the heart of the CU bias. Most of their
>> respondents were already of the mind set that domestic was crap and
>> imports were perfect. And they repeat that when they fill in their
>> survey forms.
>
>You don't understand how the survey works. They aren't asking for a
>subscriber's opinion of one product versus another, they're asking a
>series of very specific questions that ask what, if any, problems an
>owner has had with their vehicle.
>
It's ALL opinion since no one has to send in any documentation to
support their claims. If someone wants to ignore the problems they
can just answer "no problems". You don't seem to understand human
nature. For this kind of survey to have any real validity beyond
being a popularity contest it would have to be based on DOCUMENTED
work orders for repairs of all these vehicles, say from the records of
a leasing company or taxi fleet. We've had mostly GM in our
government fleet for over 20 years and we just don't have much in the
way of problems with them yet to listen to the critics we'd be lucky
if half of them were running at any given point in time. The last new
GM I had (95 caprice) required perhaps $1000 in actual non-wear item
repairs (both in and out of warranty) in the 12 years and 140K miles
of service. The entirety of it's repairs was to fix two electric
windows and one sensor on the transmission. Yet some fool on the CU
survey could, and probably would, put down 3 major repairs while
swearing they'd never buy another domestic.
>There seems to be a perception that the CU survey ask questions like
>'which is more reliable, a Toyota or a Chevy.'
>
Not at all, I've seen their questionnaire.
> I see people all the time who buy an "import" for no
>> reason other then they don't want a domestic. And that includes
>> people who have run their previous domestics for way past 100K with no
>> more problems then the imports have. In other cases it's in spite of
>> having owned imports that fell apart around them. When someone has a
>> problem with their Toyota they just shrug it off, when someone has a
>> problem with their domestic they can't stop badmouthing it long enough
>> to breath.
>
>Actually it's the opposite. The Toyota owner with a problem is upset
>because they have the mindset of 'hey this is a Toyota, I'm not supposed
>to have these problems,' while the Chevy owner shrugs it off with "well
>it's a GM product, I expected this.'
>
Sorry but human nature is such that the typical Toyota owner, who
bought it because it was supposed to be so great, is not going to
acknowledge that he paid a higher price and has just as many problems
as he's had with every other car. So he's going to forget about half
the repairs and not even list them. And to cement the rightness of
his decision he'll say he'd buy one again. OTOH, the Chevy owner
shrugs nothing off. He feels like he did GM a favor buying the car in
the first place and by god if there is a defect he's going to make
them pay dearly by giving it lots of poor ratings - that'll teach em.
>In any case the number of owners that would lie when asked questions
>regarding specific sub-systems of their vehicle, is small. No one has
>ever shown any bias in the Consumer Reports surveys, either by the
>respondents, or in the questions that are asked. It's all sour grapes
>when someone complains. The complaint is usually along the line of 'well
>_I_ never had xyz problem, so that means the survey is bogus.' These
>people don't understand statistics or the necessity of a large sample
>size in order to have valid data.
You don't understand that people rarely tell the truth for a wide
variety of reasons. And the CU survey depends 100% on the respondents
telling the truth about what is, to a large number of people, a very
emotionally charged large $$ purchase.
Ed Pawlowski
> another, they're asking a series of very specific questions that ask what,
> if any, problems an owner has had with their vehicle.
>
> There seems to be a perception that the CU survey ask questions like
> 'which is more reliable, a Toyota or a Chevy.'
There are two parts to the auto issue. One part is the survey, the other
part is the editorial comment by their testers.
IMO, the bias comes in the editorial part. Like the Suzuki rollover issue
that was proven to be problematic with CR.
The survey portion has some merit, but we don't know a lot of how the
questions were answered. Do owners of some makes tend to forget about minor
problems more or less than owners of other makes? One respondent may think
nothing of the time the radio did not work for a week and had to be replaced
and forget to mark it while another may be PO'd that one day driving under
power lines he had static on his favorite station 150 miles away and he
tells everyone about the crappy radio. .
SMS
> I'll bite. I'm looking at the April, 2009 auto issue. Let's take the
> Ford Fusion on page 89. I see lots of red circles. I'm not seeing
> them state any numbers aside from the model year and the "6" in V6.
> No sample size for this model is given, though you claim it is always
> stated. No margin of error for the reliability projection. Nothing
> of statistical value whatsoever. You must still be getting the
> special edition? Please share.
They state the sample size for the whole survey, and they also state
that they leave out models for which they get too low a number or
responses for the data to be statistically valid. Fortunately the survey
is so large that only really niche vehicles are left out for lack of data.
> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
>> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>
>LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
>early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
>special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
>makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
>
You were pretty much waging a trolling campaign against Saturn.
Way over the top. Fake trolling names and all.
Pretty much like the domestic guys will go after Toyota now for the
gas pedal problem that's killed some people, and how they went after
the Toyota head gasket and sludging problems.
No real difference. Just one biased person complaining about others'
bias.
Happens all the time. Mob mentality.
Don't feel bad about. But fight it. No sense being a punching bag.
And try to look at the big picture.
--Vic
Vic Smith
>On Nov 26, 9:52 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Hi Vic!
>
>> Not getting into statistical analysis methods, I'll note the CR has
>> NEVER given sampling sizes on a model basis. Only total surveys.
>> I am perfectly willing to be corrected on that.
>
>You won't be.
>
Hey Caviller! Long time no hear. Those were fun days when Steve was
playing the fool. Persistent cuss, wasn't he?
He did have some good points about Saturn timing chain
lubrication/failures, just somewhat over the top.
He was touting the Toyota he owned of course.
Pretty proud of how he flew from S.F to LA to cut a deal on it and
take advantage of dealer price differentials. He did a good job on
that, and is to be commended. He really "loved" that Toyota.
And here he is - a CR subscriber I guess - claiming people aren't
biased.
hehe.
--Vic
cavi...@my-deja.com
> cavil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I'll bite. I'm looking at the April, 2009 auto issue. Let's take the
> > Ford Fusion on page 89. I see lots of red circles. I'm not seeing
> > them state any numbers aside from the model year and the "6" in V6.
> > No sample size for this model is given, though you claim it is always
> > stated. No margin of error for the reliability projection. Nothing
> > of statistical value whatsoever. You must still be getting the
> > special edition? Please share.
>
> They state the sample size for the whole survey, and they also state
> that they leave out models for which they get too low a number or
> responses for the data to be statistically valid. Fortunately the survey
> is so large that only really niche vehicles are left out for lack of data.
Lol. "Hi! We surveyed a million of our own readers, so OF COURSE that
means our results are accurate!" If that's enough to satisfy your
intellecutual curiousity, so be it.
> > Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
> > anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>
> LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
> early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
> special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
> makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
Thanks to Google, thousands of your anti-Saturn and anti-domestic
rants still exist in the archives. A monkey can hit the bullseye with
a dart once in a while, but it's all the horrible misses that provide
a good chuckle.
> Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
> marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
> business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
> unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
> same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.
Haven't owned a Saturn in nearly a decade, so I'm really not
interested except to note your bias on the topic of this thread.
Since CR showed the S-series to be generally reliable, contrary to
your claims above, that doesn't even provide a basis for sour grapes.
It only provides irony that you put so much trust into their
reliability data, but ignore any results that you don't like.
As for bias, it would be nice to live in a world where you can believe
everything you see from the media at face value and know that every
study and statistic is accurate. Sadly, in the world where I live,
being naive usually means being a sucker and being duped. Here, we
would just have to blindly assume CR has no bias, because they hide
away all their methodology and statistical information for some
mysterious reason. I admit, I do like your world better.
cavi...@my-deja.com
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> There are two parts to the auto issue. One part is the survey, the other
> part is the editorial comment by their testers.
>
> IMO, the bias comes in the editorial part. Like the Suzuki rollover issue
> that was proven to be problematic with CR.
Plus, the unintentional bias comes from the part that because they
survey only their own readers, 100% of the resonses are influenced by
the editorial content.
Put aside a survey of questionable scientific validity that wouldn't
pass an undergraduate marketing exam. Put aside the results that
wouldn't hold up in any peer reviewed statistics journal. Put aside
any personal biases on the part of the management or editors. This
one issue makes everything else suspect. The results could be
reasonably accurate. Or maybe not. You'll never know. Even if they
are, I don't find the difference of 2 reported issues (of unknown
severity and cost) over 7 years to be all that significant between a
typical Ford and a typical Honda. The reality is that their own
results are exaggerating small differences by showing them as
percentages above/below an average number instead of showing them as
absolutes.
PerfectReign
scratched out:
>> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
>> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>
> LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
> early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
> special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
> makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
>
> Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
> marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
> business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
> unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
> same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.
Saturn vehicles are unreliable?
They're small, but I never knew them to be unreliable.
SMS
> Plus, the unintentional bias comes from the part that because they
> survey only their own readers,
So you believe that a CR reader that bought a Ford or Chevy is more
likely to admit to problems than a CR reader that bought a Toyota or
Honda? Where's your evidence of that, LOL?
The survey isn't "what's your opinion of the reliability of xyz brand,"
it's detailed questions on problems you've had with the vehicle you own.
SMS
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:26:09 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
> scratched out:
>
>>> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
>>> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>> LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
>> early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
>> special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
>> makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
>>
>> Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
>> marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
>> business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
>> unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
>> same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.
>
> Saturn vehicles are unreliable?
Look at the J.D. Power long term dependability results if you don't
believe Consumer Reports.
cavi...@my-deja.com
wrote:
Yeah, some things never change. Not in our case, though. Three kids
later and we have a Honda minivan and now a Toyota Prius. Nothing
against domestics. I'd have rather had a Fusion Hybrid, especially
for the extra room and superior crash protection. Unfortunately,
those available at the time were almost $10k more expensive than our
base Prius. Funny thing, CR has had mixed reviews on the Prius, too.
We bought one anyway. From reading owner forums, you'd think the
chronic complaints amounted to a lemon, but they rate pretty well in
reliability according to CR, also. Go figure!
Hadn't thought about my Saturn in a while. Decent enough car at the
time. I do miss my stereo system. These days, it's factory stereo
and sports/news radio as I run the kids around town. Pathetic, I know,
but not as bad as trolling newsgroups in a personal war against
certain products or companies.
cavi...@my-deja.com
> cavil...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Plus, the unintentional bias comes from the part that because they
> > survey only their own readers,
>
> So you believe that a CR reader that bought a Ford or Chevy is more
> likely to admit to problems than a CR reader that bought a Toyota or
> Honda? Where's your evidence of that, LOL?
Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. Doing a survey in this
fashion opens up the results to various biases and errors not present
in a scientific, randomly sampled survey. But you're right about one
thing, there's no way to prove it. Why? Because CR keeps all their
methodology secret. There's no way to know how they massage their
data, unlike what you'd find in any respectable peer reviewed medical,
economics, statistics or other scientific journal. You appear to
trust CR blindly, at least when it suits your agenda. I remain
skeptical. I can live with that.