Bias Against Domestic Cars
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 17 Nov 2009 09:40 Gee "90% worse than average" means a rate of around 2% since "Average" is just over 1% "Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message news:2j04g5ht59upc844vb27825s4rlc328vmf(a)4ax.com... > If the five year repair cost ($800) is less then $161 a year is it > 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. > > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:42:54 -0500, "C. E. White" > <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> 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: >> >>-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 >> >>
From: Andrew Rossmann on 17 Nov 2009 17:08 In article <4b020191$0$5114$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)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
From: hls on 17 Nov 2009 17:32 "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)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.
From: Derek Gee on 17 Nov 2009 22:26 "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply(a)no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.256cdade1ef3a1b9896cc(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <4b020191$0$5114$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)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
From: Derek Gee on 17 Nov 2009 22:28
"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in message news:AtudnXjE59f1uZ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS(a)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 |