Bias Against Domestic Cars
in [Toyota]
|
From: Vic Smith on 27 Nov 2009 11:04 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:26:09 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your >> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway. > >LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so >early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or >special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it >makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it. > You were pretty much waging a trolling campaign against Saturn. Way over the top. Fake trolling names and all. Pretty much like the domestic guys will go after Toyota now for the gas pedal problem that's killed some people, and how they went after the Toyota head gasket and sludging problems. No real difference. Just one biased person complaining about others' bias. Happens all the time. Mob mentality. Don't feel bad about. But fight it. No sense being a punching bag. And try to look at the big picture. --Vic
From: Vic Smith on 27 Nov 2009 11:15 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:26:58 -0800 (PST), caviller(a)my-deja.com wrote: >On Nov 26, 9:52 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >Hi Vic! > >> Not getting into statistical analysis methods, I'll note the CR has >> NEVER given sampling sizes on a model basis. Only total surveys. >> I am perfectly willing to be corrected on that. > >You won't be. > Hey Caviller! Long time no hear. Those were fun days when Steve was playing the fool. Persistent cuss, wasn't he? He did have some good points about Saturn timing chain lubrication/failures, just somewhat over the top. He was touting the Toyota he owned of course. Pretty proud of how he flew from S.F to LA to cut a deal on it and take advantage of dealer price differentials. He did a good job on that, and is to be commended. He really "loved" that Toyota. And here he is - a CR subscriber I guess - claiming people aren't biased. hehe. --Vic
From: caviller on 27 Nov 2009 11:47 On Nov 27, 4:26 am, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > cavil...(a)my-deja.com wrote: > > I'll bite. I'm looking at the April, 2009 auto issue. Let's take the > > Ford Fusion on page 89. I see lots of red circles. I'm not seeing > > them state any numbers aside from the model year and the "6" in V6. > > No sample size for this model is given, though you claim it is always > > stated. No margin of error for the reliability projection. Nothing > > of statistical value whatsoever. You must still be getting the > > special edition? Please share. > > They state the sample size for the whole survey, and they also state > that they leave out models for which they get too low a number or > responses for the data to be statistically valid. Fortunately the survey > is so large that only really niche vehicles are left out for lack of data.. Lol. "Hi! We surveyed a million of our own readers, so OF COURSE that means our results are accurate!" If that's enough to satisfy your intellecutual curiousity, so be it. > > Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your > > anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway. > > LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so > early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or > special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it > makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it. Thanks to Google, thousands of your anti-Saturn and anti-domestic rants still exist in the archives. A monkey can hit the bullseye with a dart once in a while, but it's all the horrible misses that provide a good chuckle. > Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on > marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the > business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were > unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the > same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias. Haven't owned a Saturn in nearly a decade, so I'm really not interested except to note your bias on the topic of this thread. Since CR showed the S-series to be generally reliable, contrary to your claims above, that doesn't even provide a basis for sour grapes. It only provides irony that you put so much trust into their reliability data, but ignore any results that you don't like. As for bias, it would be nice to live in a world where you can believe everything you see from the media at face value and know that every study and statistic is accurate. Sadly, in the world where I live, being naive usually means being a sucker and being duped. Here, we would just have to blindly assume CR has no bias, because they hide away all their methodology and statistical information for some mysterious reason. I admit, I do like your world better.
From: caviller on 27 Nov 2009 11:55 On Nov 26, 9:02 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...(a)snet.net> wrote: > "SMS" <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > > There are two parts to the auto issue. One part is the survey, the other > part is the editorial comment by their testers. > > IMO, the bias comes in the editorial part. Like the Suzuki rollover issue > that was proven to be problematic with CR. Plus, the unintentional bias comes from the part that because they survey only their own readers, 100% of the resonses are influenced by the editorial content. Put aside a survey of questionable scientific validity that wouldn't pass an undergraduate marketing exam. Put aside the results that wouldn't hold up in any peer reviewed statistics journal. Put aside any personal biases on the part of the management or editors. This one issue makes everything else suspect. The results could be reasonably accurate. Or maybe not. You'll never know. Even if they are, I don't find the difference of 2 reported issues (of unknown severity and cost) over 7 years to be all that significant between a typical Ford and a typical Honda. The reality is that their own results are exaggerating small differences by showing them as percentages above/below an average number instead of showing them as absolutes.
From: PerfectReign on 27 Nov 2009 11:55
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:26:09 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and scratched out: >> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your >> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway. > > LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so > early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or > special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it > makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it. > > Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on > marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the > business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were > unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the > same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias. Saturn vehicles are unreliable? They're small, but I never knew them to be unreliable. -- perfectreign www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request |