Bias Against Domestic Cars
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Nov 2009 10:29 That was YOUR mistake I guess. "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message news:kdWdna48MvisZJTWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4b09c67c$0$22020$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> You should have know better than to buy an import ;) >> >> > > Right, the Buick was imported from Canada >
From: Mike Hunter on 23 Nov 2009 10:51 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 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" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > > 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: Mike Hunter on 23 Nov 2009 11:07 You are correct, those numbers are failures PER HUNDRED over three years, 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" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message news:3j4kg5ljsfads2bc2oqbmlhjq7issihcf3(a)4ax.com... > 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 >>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: larry moe 'n curly on 23 Nov 2009 12:48 Derek Gee wrote: > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:7d7642f3-3295-4e59-be33-5c3db331b561(a)i12g2000prg.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. 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.
From: PerfectReign on 23 Nov 2009 16:25
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:01:53 +0100, George Orwell fired up the 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 |