Bias Against Domestic Cars
in [Toyota]
|
From: Derek Gee on 22 Nov 2009 22:09 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4b092a9d$0$1994$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > larry moe 'n curly wrote: >> >> 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? > > Because there's never been even the slightest bit of bias shown in > Consumer Reports' reviews. These complaints have always been sour grapes. 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
From: dr_jeff on 22 Nov 2009 23:00 Derek Gee wrote: > "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message > news:nIGdnRSpQL__s5TWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message >>> 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. >> >> 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. > > 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 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
From: Ashton Crusher on 22 Nov 2009 23:48 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:04:35 -0500, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote: >"Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message >news:nIGdnRSpQL__s5TWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> 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. > >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 > 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.
From: C. E. White on 23 Nov 2009 07:30 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:9LGdndOqH8dGlZfWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... > 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
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Nov 2009 10:27
It must be the how well you handled the preventive maintenance. One of my 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. <clare(a)snyder.on.ca> wrote in message news:c7tjg5da93kpm5lkukftk9ocpmdki0degj(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:17:14 -0500, "Mike Hunter" > <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote: > >>You should have know better than to buy an import ;) >> >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message >>news:nIGdnRSpQL__s5TWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> > 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. |