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...
>
>
Mike Hunter
"Jim_Higgins" <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdtc2u$k77$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Assuage your guilt, angst, frustration and general weirdness. Send me all
> your money (only non-revocable letters of credit and/or gold, silver,
> jewels, platinum, etc.). This generous offer valid only for a limited time
> Mikey.
>
> --
> Islam Delenda Est
Mike Hunter
California?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-E02D5A....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <hdrvlt$epq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles.
>
> That's like saying you're biased against having piles of human waste in
> your living room.
>
> Bias is simply bias. In this case, enough people came about the bias
> honestly.
>
> Fuck the UAW and the crap it puts out. Fuck the Big Three and the crap
> they put out.
Mike Hunter
just over 1%
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:2j04g5ht59upc844v...@4ax.com...
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
Mike Hunter
when they said the small FWD Dodge Omni was a better car than the small
Plymouth. The only difference was the grill. LOL
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b6afc10e-9469-434a...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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?
>>>
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
Mike Hunter
same wheelbase or track..
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:mu99g5hv5h4cfi4v5...@4ax.com...
Mike Hunter
lots of other brand dealership. Apparently the previous owner chose not to
buy another Scion, for some reason.
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b04a86d$0$5092$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Mike Hunter
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:JOKdnUJqm4PvM5nW...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
dr_jeff
> One thing is for certain, ones sees a lot of Scions sitting on the used car
> lots of other brand dealership. Apparently the previous owner chose not to
> buy another Scion, for some reason.
I see a lot of Fords and Chevies at Toyota dealerships, too. So what?
dr_jeff
> The difference is huge! JD Powers quantifies its data, CR does not.
Please show us that the numbers that show up are meaningful and reliable.
jeff
Derek Gee
Derek Gee
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
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?
>
> 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).
> You mean like the Tundra today?
What's your point? CR dropped the Toyota Tundra from its list of
recommended vehicles when their survey showed that it had inferior
reliability.
> I stopped buying CR back in the seventy when they said the small
> FWD Dodge Omni was a better car than the small Plymouth.
> The only difference was the grill. LOL
Cite the issue, or post the reviews, as I've done for other
vehicles. The first-year Dodge Omni and its twin, the Plymouth
Horizon, were both rated something like "not recommended" by CR
because of poor handling. OTOH some time in the 1990s, CR preferred
the GM Geo Prizm over its near twin, the Toyota Corolla, because the
Corolla had inferior handling due to a missing stabilizer bar that the
Prizm possessed.
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
Mike Hunter wrote:
>
> One thing is for certain, ones sees a lot of Scions sitting on the used car
> lots of other brand dealership. Apparently the previous owner chose not to
> buy another Scion, for some reason.
I don't see many Scions on used car lots; mostly I see the biggest
selling models and budget models, the latter probably because their
buyers were less affluent and therefore more vulnerable to economic
problems, higher cost loans, or financial carelessness. It's possible
Scion is in that catagory, especially because it's marketed toward
youts (youthhhs). And I believe Saturn's customers went from higher
than average affluence for their age in the 1990s to lower than
average, and in the past few years Saturns have had one of the highest
repossession rates for all brands.
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
certificate, curious.
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b08ad8c$0$4871$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
dr_jeff
> I had no idea a year of statistics was required for one to earn an MD
> certificate, curious.
I took a semester of statistics as part of my college work. In addition,
statistics was part of my medical school education in epidemiology and
part of my residency curriculum. How else do you expect doctors to be
able to understand the statistics in research articles is we don't learn
it during medical school and residency?
However, I did not know Derek was an MD, too. Interesting. (You
responded to Derek's message, not mine.)
Jeff
Mike Hunter
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:nIGdnRSpQL__s5TW...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
foreign cars today ;)
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b092a9d$0$1994$742e...@news.sonic.net...
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
Mike Hunter
grand children has a V6 loaded 2000 Mystique, that currently has over
250,000 miles on the odometer, that has been trouble free for ten years and
he is the third owner.
<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:c7tjg5da93kpm5lku...@4ax.com...
Mike Hunter
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:kdWdna48MvisZJTW...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
MAJORITY of new vehicle buyers, not used car buyers. Used vehicle buyers
are primarily the concern of dealerships, who must move their used cars
The fact is the average new vehicle buyer in the US, replaces that NEW
vehicle with another NEW vehicle, in three to four years with 45,000 to
60,000 miles on the odometer. Surveys from JD Powers, like those from CR,
simply show that they ALL fall within the 2% failure rate for ALL
manufactured products.
Any car sold in the US today will easily run to 150,000 mile or more with
the proper preventive maintenance. For the average new vehicle buyer in the
US, that is around ten years. The only REAL difference among them is style
and price.
As to those few new vehicle buyers who keep their vehicle until it fall
apart, like major fleet owners, they should be more cognizant of the total
initial cost, shop rates, insurance rates and the price of parts. The
fact is they ALL need to be maintained and repaired at some point
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>
Mike Hunter
not per VEHICLE. 122 is thus a rate of 1.22 and 170 is 1.70 with 2.0
being the average failure rate for all manufactured products, that is why
they all offer a warranty even Rolls Royce.
When one consider the various conditions, of which millions of new vehicles
sold every year, are used or abused, maintained or not, in various climates,
on the various road types, unlike a refrigerators or TVs, vehicles do very
well overall in comparison.
"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:3j4kg5ljsfads2bc2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:04:35 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>No, Powers has TWO different studies, the IQS (Initial Quality Study), and
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.
Mike Hunter
did not service it properly?
Don't forget when one buys used, they are buying a vehicle that the original
owner obviously no longer wanted for some reason
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.23....@e86.GTS...
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.
dr_jeff
> You are confused, again dr_jeff. JD Powers reports are directed to the
> MAJORITY of new vehicle buyers, not used car buyers. Used vehicle buyers
> are primarily the concern of dealerships, who must move their used cars
I am not confused at all. I didn't say a word about used cars.
> The fact is the average new vehicle buyer in the US, replaces that NEW
> vehicle with another NEW vehicle, in three to four years with 45,000 to
> 60,000 miles on the odometer. Surveys from JD Powers, like those from CR,
> simply show that they ALL fall within the 2% failure rate for ALL
> manufactured products.
Bull. Not every manufactured product has a 2% failure rate. Some have a
far higher rate and some a far lower rate.
> Any car sold in the US today will easily run to 150,000 mile or more with
> the proper preventive maintenance. For the average new vehicle buyer in the
> US, that is around ten years. The only REAL difference among them is style
> and price.
In your opinion.
> As to those few new vehicle buyers who keep their vehicle until it fall
> apart, like major fleet owners, they should be more cognizant of the total
> initial cost, shop rates, insurance rates and the price of parts. The
> fact is they ALL need to be maintained and repaired at some point
Yet some need to be repaired more than others. To think that there is an
accross-the-board 2% failure rate on anything is stupid and naive at best.
Jeff
Mike Hunter
discover that 2% IS the average failure rate of all manufacturer products,
whether you chose to believe that fact or not is immaterial.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:b6Cdne0MT6ZfqZbW...@giganews.com...
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.
Mike Hunter
;)
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0c0ac2$0$1600$742e...@news.sonic.net...
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
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
> "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
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.
Mike Hunter
regular people.
Large fleet operators do a far better job of maintaining the huge investment
they have in the TOOLS used in their business.
In the case of vehicles, fleet vehicles are one of their best maintained
tools because federal corporate tax desperation laws require they be
deprecated over five years or 300,000 mile, WOF.
On the other hand the average new vehicle buyer replaces that vehicle with
another new vehicle in three to four years with 45,000 to 60,000 miles on
the odometer
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:p66dnQdIPO_BBZHW...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
to buy the same car with Toyota on the grill, rather than Prizm LOL
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0d55be$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Mike Hunter
vehicles in the US for the past ten years and CR has less than 400,000
subscribers...........well you do the math LOL
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0d5518$0$1625$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Mike Hunter
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k8aPm.24968$kY2....@newsfe01.iad...
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.