 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2009What's hot? Cars that last
Wall Street Journal The lousy economy is making planned obsolescence obsolete in the car business. The auto industry is geared up to sell you a new car every four or five years -- a legacy of General Motors Corp.'s realization early last century that cars could be marketed as status symbols and fashion accessories. That insight helped GM end the reign of Henry Ford's utilitarian and durable Model T, and turbocharged America's post-World War II consumer culture. Now, rattled by economic hard times, many Americans are heading back Henry Ford's way... Continued: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123784792463318543.html Apparently, back to Ford as well > Wall Street Journal > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Continued: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123784792463318543.html This survey was apparently on cars three years old, and the improvements have some definite value. The surveys that were made with cars three months off the lot are all but worthless. I heard an interview with Rick Wagoner the other day and it is clear he still doesnt have a clue. Lutz can and does speak with a straight tongue, and I believe people like him can help build trust in the products again, if he walks the walk. Wagoner needs to get a job doing something he is good at. >Wagoner needs to get a job doing something he is good at. Which is??? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > This survey was apparently on cars three years old, and the improvements > have some > definite value. > > The surveys that were made with cars three months off the lot are all but > worthless. JD Power has publicly stated that the Initial Quality numbers track very against Vehicle Durability Study numbers three years down the road. That's quite a bit better than "worthless". Derek "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message news:49c963e0$0$4901. > JD Power has publicly stated that the Initial Quality numbers track very > against Vehicle Durability Study numbers three years down the road. > That's quite a bit better than "worthless". > > Derek No, it isnt.. It is damn near worthless. If you buy something NEW you expect it to perform. Three months is nothing. After 3-4 years or better, the value of the product begins to become obvious. GM has sucked in the past ( see Lutz admissons) about putting out a pretty product that wasnt worth a sh.t. You can buy anything you want. And if GM reliability becomes accepted, then you might want to buy some GM product. At this pont, I wouldnt consider ANY GM product. Maybe in the future, if there is one for Wagoner and his pimps, but not now. > And if GM reliability becomes accepted, then you might want to buy some > GM product. At this pont, > I wouldnt consider ANY GM product. You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable vehicles sold right alongside some clunkers. Most of the midsize/small front drives powered by the 60-degree v6 family are crap. Most of the larger front-drives (particularly Buick models) are excellent, as are all the Northstar powered vehicles. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Cadillac (except that they've been butt-ugly for the last 5 years or more), a G8, or a GM truck or full-size SUV right now. But a Cobalt or G6 or similar? Screw that! >> And if GM reliability becomes accepted, then you might want to buy some >> GM product. At this pont, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >more), a G8, or a GM truck or full-size SUV right now. But a Cobalt or >G6 or similar? Screw that! Everyone I know who has owned big Caddies in the last ten years has bailed in the last 4 or 5. Nothing but trouble - one thing after another - that the dealers cannot seam to solve. Might be OK for a year or two - but one friend had SEVEN Cadzillas in 5 years. Most spent more time in the dealer's garage than his. He's driving Lexus now and happer than a pig in you-know-what. >You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >more), a G8, or a GM truck or full-size SUV right now. But a Cobalt or >G6 or similar? Screw that! I hate to disagree as I LOVE Cadillacs but you are off base on this one. The NorthStar engines have huge head gasket problems and are failing at an alarming rate. The head bolt threads in the block fail and the bolts pull out. You are looking at a 3 to 4k dollar repair when (not if) this happens. Book time is somewhere around 25 hours. Supposedly the situation is much improved in 2003 and newer models. Buicks are somewhat better overall but they have had a big problem with the egr pipe warping the plastic intake manifold allowing coolant to leak in to the engine. This one is supposedly fixed after the 2k model though I still hear a number of complaints on the issue. Steve B. >>You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >when (not if) this happens. Book time is somewhere around 25 hours. >Supposedly the situation is much improved in 2003 and newer models. According to most dealers the Northstar is NOT field rebuildable. And the head bolts are also the girdle bolts - to remove the heads the pan needs to come off if what I've been told by a guy I know who used to maintain a fleet of limos is true. NO local engine rebuilder will tough them with a 10 ft pole either >Buicks are somewhat better overall but they have had a big problem >with the egr pipe warping the plastic intake manifold allowing coolant >to leak in to the engine. This one is supposedly fixed after the 2k >model though I still hear a number of complaints on the issue. The EGR/plastic manifold problem is easily fixable and almost a non-issue after Series 2. But the 3800 still had issues, and the 3400 replacement? is a timebomb. Like the Northstar it's not a question of IF, but WHEN. > Steve B. >>> You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>> at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > IF, but WHEN. >> Steve B. The top engine and intake area seem to be a problem for GM designers. I just helped my wifes's aunt find a replacement for her Oldsmobile - '94 IIRC - in which the plastic intake sprung an internal leak (maybe the EGR situation mentioned earlier?), and I just a month ago had to replace the intake gasket on my wife's '99 Century. An '88 Cadillac I had developed a pinhole leak in the intake-to-head mating surface. And on top of that, GM bought into the DexCool™/Prestone Extended Life™ disaster. It should be a clue that they put coolant system leak sealer in at the factory on many of their engines. I've been driving and owning many brands of vehicles for over 40 years, and have *never* once had anything but a GM have that type of problem in those areas, so it's not a matter of my doing something wrong or not maintaining them. Like I said - intake coolant porting and gasketing seems to be a very weak area for GM design.  SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>> at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > maintain a fleet of limos is true. NO local engine rebuilder will > tough them with a 10 ft pole either The Northstar has been around for 17-odd years now, and I'm not going to deny it's had a share of quirks (block porosity allowing it to leak fluids right *through* the metal being one of the most, um, "interesting" problems). IIRC GM's grand plan was for the Northstar to become the one corporate engine line, and its early problems probably are what helped kill that idea. As for "no local engine rebuilder will touch them," that's probably somewhat true. Local engine rebuilders are all but *gone* except for supporting local racers and guys like me who restore their 40+ year old vehicles. With pretty much any thin-sleeved aluminum block engine, a complete rebuild is not cost-effective compared to getting a new or assembly-line rebuilt short block. But back to the Northstar- the vast majority of them just *work* and work extremely well for years and hundreds of thousands of miles. When you do have to work on them, its a royal pain in some ways, but that's what you get when you make a 300+ horsepower lightweight v8 that can fit in a compact FWD vehicle. Packaging sucks- the starter is under the intake manifold, for example. We're not ever going back to the days of the Cadillac 472 where you could sit on the fender, reach down into its bowels and fix something while munching on a sandwich. Cadillac engines have had pretty complex and annoying service procedures since the 80s, but if you *follow* the published procedures instead of ASSuming that since a procedure worked on a Chrysler 318 its going to be the same on a Northstar, you can certainly maintain them just fine. If you've ever tried to work on any Japanese car, you know that its the same story there. WORSE, in fact- at least GM doesn't put the PCV valve under the intake manifold like Toyota has done in the past! Pretty much the same for any modern vehicle- they just aren't built for simplicity of service anymore. >>>> You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>>> at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >the same for any modern vehicle- they just aren't built for simplicity >of service anymore. My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are actually not all that bad. Even the Previa and Van LE were easier to work on than the 3800 TransSport or a 2.5 Liter Mystique. > My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs > and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are > actually not all that bad. Even the Previa and Van LE were easier to > work on than the 3800 TransSport or a 2.5 Liter Mystique. My daughter's 1990 pickup (with 3.0 litre engine) has the most mind-numbingly stupid unmaintainable issues of any vehicle I've ever owned. Of course, every other vehicle has been a Chrysler, so perhaps I'm just spoiled. >> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > owned. Of course, every other vehicle has been a Chrysler, so perhaps > I'm just spoiled. I've had a few Chrysler products that raised my ire too. Dad's 78 Horizon was a service mess. The two 80s M-bodies that drifted through the family were annoying in that most things were typically Chrysler straightforward, and others were mind-numbingly annoying- like anything related to the accessory brackets seemed to have been needlessly goobered-up compared to 70s Mopars. And then the whole "isolated transverse suspension" concept that created a pretty-much impenetrable bucket of steel right below the engine and limited access from below severely. But I never quit being amazed at how nice it was to work on the '93 LH. Some things *looked* horrific- like the first glance at changing a timing belt. UNTIL you read the service manual and discovered that 4 bolts would get the whole radiator upper cross-brace out of the way, then 4 more plus a wire and 4 clips would get the electric fans out and open up plenty of room in front of the engine. Same with access to the steering rack- it looked *buried* at the back of the engine compartment, but a few bolts to remove the windshield wiper motor and linkage "tray" as an assembly, then popping off the air intake "Y" pipe (this was a 3.5) opened up plenty of room back there too. Someone had obviously put some time into deliberately grouping things into easily-removed modules to allow access to deeper bits and pieces. And that car lasted over 250k miles, too. No complaints there. Just skimming the FSM for wife's 05 PT revealed one thing that made my hair hurt.... to replace the right motor mount, the 4th or 5th step is "remove engine assembly." <sigh> I sure hope it lasts a *long* time. I can almost forgive it, the PT is something of a special case when it comes to packing components in. Its very obvious that a lot of the layout was dictated by the car's oddball styling. And to get back to Cadillacs- don't even get me started on the HT4100 that drifted through the family. OK, too late, I'm started. Just one example: to change the water pump, you had to remove the PS pump. OK, I can buy that. To remove the PS pump, you have to get at a bolt that's blocked by the PS pulley. Been there before, no problem... IF they had used a spoked PS pulley like my '69 Coronet has so that you could remove the bolt through the gap between pulley spokes. But no- Cadillac used a solid disk pulley. Gotta squeeze a puller into the limited space and extract the pulley off the PS pump nose, all just to get at *one* stinking bolt. > But I never quit being amazed at how nice it was to work on the '93 > LH. Some things *looked* horrific- like the first glance at changing a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > easily-removed modules to allow access to deeper bits and pieces. And > that car lasted over 250k miles, too. No complaints there. Amen. The second generation is just as good, but, again, you *really* need the FSM to find that out. > Just skimming the FSM for wife's 05 PT revealed one thing that made my > hair hurt.... to replace the right motor mount, the 4th or 5th step is > "remove engine assembly." <sigh> I sure hope it lasts a *long* time. I > can almost forgive it, the PT is something of a special case when it > comes to packing components in. Its very obvious that a lot of the > layout was dictated by the car's oddball styling. Ummm.... on Becca's Neon, replacing the timing belt required removing one of the motor mounts. My recollection is it was the right side... I sure hope I'm remembering wrong. >> But I never quit being amazed at how nice it was to work on the '93 >> LH. Some things *looked* horrific- like the first glance at changing a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >one of the motor mounts. My recollection is it was the right side... >I sure hope I'm remembering wrong. Neon engine mount needs to come out to do the timing belt, but removing the neon engine mount is a relatively simple job - done with the engine in place with the help of a jack and a piece of wood. >>> Just skimming the FSM for wife's 05 PT revealed one thing that made my >>> hair hurt.... to replace the right motor mount, the 4th or 5th step is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > removing the neon engine mount is a relatively simple job - done with > the engine in place with the help of a jack and a piece of wood. Right (I did it; unfortunately, after the belt had broken... compression check showed the valves were not damaged, but my oh my it went through oil after that) -- but does the PT also require removing the motor mount to do the timing belt? And given (per Steve's quote above) that replacing the motor mount requires removing the engine... >>>> Just skimming the FSM for wife's 05 PT revealed one thing that made my >>>> hair hurt.... to replace the right motor mount, the 4th or 5th step is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >the motor mount to do the timing belt? And given (per Steve's quote >above) that replacing the motor mount requires removing the engine... The mount needs to come out but it is possible to do IN the car. >>> Ummm.... on Becca's Neon, replacing the timing belt required removing >>> one of the motor mounts. My recollection is it was the right side... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the motor mount to do the timing belt? And given (per Steve's quote > above) that replacing the motor mount requires removing the engine... I skimmed the FSM on that when I first got it, and it looks like the timing belt on the PT can be changed without removing that engine mount. Lots of other stuff has to come out of the way, but not the main engine mount. The PT has 3 engine mounting components on the right side- the main mount that carries the weight of the engine (and which requires the engine to come out if you need to change it) and two torque struts that control engine rotation. I've already replaced the torque struts on our PT to cure a vibration at 25 mph under acceleration (which isn't completely gone, and I wonder if its because I used a Mopar upper strut and an aftermarket lower that had a different rubber bushing design...) >> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >owned. Of course, every other vehicle has been a Chrysler, so perhaps >I'm just spoiled. You've never owned a PT Cruiser!! Thankfully mine is NOT the Turbo - this one is tight enough (the early 2.4, not the "world engine) >>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You've never owned a PT Cruiser!! Thankfully mine is NOT the Turbo - > this one is tight enough (the early 2.4, not the "world engine) True -- though that same daughter did have a '95 Neon for a while (similar though not the same, in spite of some who make the claim, platform) and it was the single easiest vehicle to work on I've ever owned, including my '66 Charger. Unfortunately, part of her disenchantment with it stemmed from the fact that it was as easy for stereo thieves to work on as it was for us... >>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >fact that it was as easy for stereo thieves to work on as it was for >us... My daughter had a '89 Neon - was broken into 3 times and stolen once - But working on it - even being a twin cam was a veritable CINCH compared to the PR. There isn't room for a flee to move under the confines of a PT hood - those big fenders, narrow grill, oldfashioned look really puts a damper on things. Would be easier with the engine in lengthwize!!!! >>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You've never owned a PT Cruiser!! Thankfully mine is NOT the Turbo - > this one is tight enough (the early 2.4, not the "world engine) Did the PT ever get switched over to the World Engine? I've never been clear on that. If so, it must have been in the last 3 years, the 06 we looked at before buying the 05 still had the 2.4. Interesting, I just did some googling around and I can only find references to the TURBO motor being switched to the "world engine" platform in 07, but I have to assume that the NA version was also switched. >>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >motor being switched to the "world engine" platform in 07, but I have to >assume that the NA version was also switched. All '07 and I believe the last of the 06 production are 2.4 "world engine" - AKA Hyundai/Kia/ ? /? /? > All '07 and I believe the last of the 06 production are 2.4 "world > engine" - AKA Hyundai/Kia/ ? /? /? Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi. Hopefully the Chrysler participation prevented too much oil burning and head cracking from the Mitsu side of things :-/ Hyundai and Kia are the same parent company now, I think. >>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >motor being switched to the "world engine" platform in 07, but I have to >assume that the NA version was also switched. Nope. No PT Cruiser had the world engine. >>>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >No PT Cruiser had the world engine. You are wrong. 2007 and up have the world engine. >>>>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>No PT Cruiser had the world engine. > You are wrong. 2007 and up have the world engine. Afraid not. Ever seen one? Can you tell the difference? 09 PT Cruiser 2.4L SMPI & 2.4L turbo: http://www.chrysler.com/en/2009/pt_cruiser/performance/powertrain/ Specs from Chrysler service information: Displacement 2.4 Liters 148 cu. in. Bore 87.5 mm 3.445 in. Stroke 101.0 mm 3.976 in. 09 Sebring/Avenger/Caliber/Patriot/Compass/Journey 2.4L dVVT "World Engine": http://www.chrysler.com/en/2009/sebring/performance/powertrain/ Specs from Chrysler service information: Displacement 2.4 Liters 146.5 cu. in. Bore 88 mm 3.465 in. Stroke 97 mm 3.819 in. >>>>>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>>>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Bore 88 mm 3.465 in. >Stroke 97 mm 3.819 in. Mea Culpa. I was wrong. The PT Cruiser appears to be the one holdout for the old Neon 2.0 based 2.4 I've been wrong before - and likely will be sometime again!! There was RUMOR that the PT was to get the World Engine, but apparently it did not happen. Mine is a 2002 >>>>>>> My experience with Toyota over the years - and then owning Fords, GMs >>>>>>> and Chyslers (and working on those owned by friends) the Toys are [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Bore 88 mm 3.465 in. > Stroke 97 mm 3.819 in. THANK YOU! Definitive info at last!!!! The bore and stroke difference are certainly conclusive. I've been meaning to look up the bore-center spacing. If its the same, then the block and crank of the current "world engine" are derivative of the first 2.2 and the 2.5 from way back in the 80s. The 2.0/2.4 shared a lot of 2.2 dimensions like that, and at least one complete assembly from the 2.5- the balance shaft module. >>You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > when (not if) this happens. Book time is somewhere around 25 hours. > Supposedly the situation is much improved in 2003 and newer models. 25 hours? I'm trying to imagine how this is possible -- how are the threads repaired? I can't imagine doing heli-coils would take anywhere near this long. >>>You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>>at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >threads repaired? I can't imagine doing heli-coils would take >anywhere near this long. They are a complex engine jammed tightly into a cramped hood. Extremely difficult to work on. I was mistaken. the bolts to not go down to the bearing girdle - but they DO pull out tlike the headbolts on the Magnesium block VW pancakes (1500 and 1600 "suitcase" engines in particular) and the same type of "TymeSert" threaded bushing needs to be installed. I believe ARP has a different solutionusing larger head bolts as well. The originals IIRC are 11mm - a non-standard thread. >>>>You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>>>at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > head bolts as well. The originals IIRC are 11mm - a non-standard > thread. That's still pretty wild. I'm not familiar with the VW engine, so that description doesn't help much; a nonstandard thread might help explain the price, but not the 25 hours. >>>>> You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>>>> at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that description doesn't help much; a nonstandard thread might help > explain the price, but not the 25 hours. I have no problem imagining it the way everything has to be so integrated on modern cars for compactness and weight - between consumer and government demands and regulations, to even hope to be competitive, the manufacturers have to cram 30 pounds of crap into the proverbial 5 pound bag. The consumer and the governments have gotten what they asked for/demanded along with all of the unintended consequences that create maintenance nightmares and multiple thousand dollar routine maintenance issues for the consumer. Welcome to the modern world. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >That's still pretty wild. I'm not familiar with the VW engine, so >that description doesn't help much; a nonstandard thread might help >explain the price, but not the 25 hours. The majority of the book time is because you can't do the job with the engine in the car and you can't pull the engine from the top... you have to drop the entire cradle out the bottom. Here's a step by step guide http://cadillacforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3090 If you want to learn more about the problem visit http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-performance-technical-discussion/ There are a couple of really good NorthStar "stickys" at the top with a great discussion of the problem complete with pictures. Perhaps I see them a bit more since I live in the land of the Blue Hairs but the pick and pull is overrun with these cars down here. Steve B. >> That's still pretty wild. I'm not familiar with the VW engine, so >> that description doesn't help much; a nonstandard thread might help [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steve B. Particularly revealing to me was the survey of gasket/bolt failures at: http://tinyurl.com/cz3p6m Which clearly reveals that there was a rash of failures between 1997 and 1999, trailing off with none reported in their survey after MY 2003 (and only 2 in 2003). Granted the sample size is small, but that's an AWFULLY clear trend! >>>>>You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>>>>at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >that description doesn't help much; a nonstandard thread might help >explain the price, but not the 25 hours. 25 hours is CONSERVATIVE. You've gotta have a few under your belt to make flat rate on them - and most dealer techs don't want to do them because it takes MORE than they get paid for flat rate. >>> You can't make a blanket statement like that with GM. For the past, oh, >>> at least 15 years, GM has had some *very* reliable and enjoyable [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > threads repaired? I can't imagine doing heli-coils would take > anywhere near this long. Yes, the whole comment pretty much fails the sanity check test. Of course so does the fact that I, whose very blood cells are shaped like little Chrysler pentastars, am defending GM. :-) Where's the guy who went by "VioletLightning" when you need him to comment on Northstar service procedures? I guess he might still respond if this were in .tech, but I actually haven't seen a post from him in a long time. > "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message > news:49c963e0$0$4901. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expect it to perform. > Three months is nothing. You've missed my point. What JD Power is saying is that the IQS numbers predict very well what the Vehicle Durability Study numbers three years down the road will look like. That is not worthless. Derek The problem with ranking anything on a 'list' is, the fact that it is misleading. Any list of the finest of the finest, or even the worst of the worst, will have one on the top and another on the bottom, which means nothing. Those surveys should be presented as the statistical PERCENTAGE, which is what they are, that would be more meaningful. As a statistic list would show that ALL manufactured vehicle fall within the 2% average failure rate for ALL manufactured products, with one being at an insignificant small percentage above the one below. Does it really matter if the failure rate is 1.8% or 1.9 or even 1.1% when the 3,000,000 copies of that vehicle were sold? Your chance that you bought one of the 98% that did NOT have a failure is far greater and even you did get one of the 2% the failure would have been covered by the warranty, that is why all manufacturers offer a warranty, even on a $500,000 Rolls Royce Durability studies that are not quantified are meaningless to the average person as well, because unless one spends big buck to subscribe to the group providing the survey, there is not way to know how the person surveyed used or abused the product or if they provide the proper preventive maintenance or not. >> "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSUCKS@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:49c963e0$0$4901. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Derek On Mar 26, 8:06 pm, "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote: > > "Derek Gee" <dgeeSPAMSU...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:49c963e0$0$4901. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Derek I don't believe that; some of the best vehicles I have ever owned have been completely destroyed by JD Power, Consumer Reports, et. al. besides, three years old is still a new car. Probably newer than I'm likely to buy, anyway. nate >> This survey was apparently on cars three years old, and the improvements >> have some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Derek Since they make money by selling those numbers I'm not surprised they claim they are both wonderful. >>> This survey was apparently on cars three years old, and the improvements >>> have some [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Since they make money by selling those numbers I'm not surprised they > claim they are both wonderful. True, JD Power aren't in it for charity, but I've been tracking their numbers against Consumer Reports and internal automaker data, and overall it does track pretty well against it. I only wish they would track the vehicles for longer than three years (like they used to). At that point, they are only just being nicely broken in... :) Derek > Wall Street Journal > > The lousy economy is making planned obsolescence obsolete in the car > business. I have a large banner hanging in my garage that reads "planned obsolescence is bullshit". My next door neighbor hates it since he works at one of the big 3. The NEWEST year of vehicle I have ever owned is 1974! Presently the years of cars I own are 1947, 1964 and 1966. I have owned the 1966 since 1984 with very little problem with reliability! I don't care... even if I'm a billionaire, I will NEVER buy new! Of course if I had that much money, I would have my own prototype built from scratch! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.