Bias Against Domestic Cars
in [Toyota]
|
From: Derek Gee on 24 Nov 2009 21:31 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:9LGdndOqH8dGlZfWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... > 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 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
From: Derek Gee on 24 Nov 2009 21:34 "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 >>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. 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
From: dr_jeff on 24 Nov 2009 21:36 Derek Gee wrote: > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:9LGdndOqH8dGlZfWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... >> 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 > > 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 Yet the way cars and trucks in large fleets is not the same as regular people.
From: Derek Gee on 24 Nov 2009 21:38 "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:477a91a6-f98d-47cc-b314-a65f9f364d1f(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. 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
From: SMS on 24 Nov 2009 23:23
Derek Gee wrote: > 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. |