 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / June 2006NY TIMES Critic: Likes Azera, Predicts Improvements
An interesting review. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/automobiles/autoreviews/11AUTO.html?_r=1&oref= slogin > An interesting review. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/automobiles/autoreviews/11AUTO.html?_r=1&oref= slogin That's also about how I'd rate my Sonata vs. the Camry. Close, but no cigar. However, the value aspect made the difference for me. I certainly wouldn't pay anything close to equal money for a Sonata vs. a Camry. If the difference had been less than 10%, I'd have bought a Camry. I'm also not surprised at the customer satisfaction rating. I've never bought a Toyota or Honda so maybe they do the same thing, but I've never been bribed as heavily as I was by my Hyundai dealer to give them a perfect score on the surveys I received after buying the car. Free oil changes, discounts on accessories, etc. They were very aggressive about this. I don't mean aggressive in a terribly negative way, but this was mentioned to me several times by both the sales person and the service manager. So, I suspect that Hyundai's are much higher quality cars than in the past, but I also believe that the scores are being actively manipulated by Hyundai. I never had this sort of behavior from Chrysler or GM. I've never bought a new Ford so I have no experience there. And my only Honda was bought new in 1984 and nothing of the sort happened there either. Matt I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer satisfaction and even reliability scores. > I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer satisfaction > and even reliability scores. No doubt. I'd just never seen anything as aggressive as Hyundai. They are 2-3X more aggressive than I've ever seen before, just just a little bit more aggressive. Matt > I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer satisfaction > and even reliability scores. Well wouldn't that be the idea - to make the customer happy? I know its a rather odd thought, especially if you've ever been around a Chrysler dealer. JS >> I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer >> satisfaction and even reliability scores. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JS Yeah, but they are manipulating the satisfaction scores on the initial product by BRIBING the customer with free oil changes, accessories or whatever. You could make the argument that those free items ARE making the customer more satisfied, but more than likely they are skewing the results of initial quality and satisfaction reports. Eric >Yeah, but they are manipulating the satisfaction scores on the initial >product by BRIBING the customer with free oil changes, accessories or >whatever. You could make the argument that those free items ARE making the >customer more satisfied, but more than likely they are skewing the results >of initial quality and satisfaction reports. My sales lady offered me a free fill up if I would show her my questionnaire. She said nothing about whether the ratings had to be good. Maybe there is an implied quid pro quo, but I didn't feel there was.  SignatureBob > >Yeah, but they are manipulating the satisfaction scores on the initial > >product by BRIBING the customer with free oil changes, accessories or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Bob Hyundai seems to be very concerned about customer satisfaction. I remember buying American cars in the old days, once they sold the car, they didn't care what you thought. That attitude doesn't work when you are a foreign maker trying to capture a customer base. Hyundai seems to ride roughshod of dealers on service too. A few week after I bought my Elantra, I took my Accent to the dealer to get the timing belt changed. Someone must have made a mistake entering it in the computer because someone from Hyundai, not the dealer, called me asking why I was replacing the timing belt on a car that was less than a month old. I told them it was a mistake, the belt was changed on my Accent not the Elantra. - Mooron Actually, receiving the call is a good thing. That means someone at the dealer or at Hyundai saw something odd and inquired about it, looking out for your best interests. > Actually, receiving the call is a good thing. That means someone at the > dealer or at Hyundai saw something odd and inquired about it, looking out > for your best interests. Exactly, they saw something that made no sense and questioned it. I was surprised they were on top of things to that extent. - Mooron >>Yeah, but they are manipulating the satisfaction scores on the initial >>product by BRIBING the customer with free oil changes, accessories or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > questionnaire. She said nothing about whether the ratings had to be good. > Maybe there is an implied quid pro quo, but I didn't feel there was. So just why else would she want to see the survey? Bob, you really aren't THAT naive are you? Matt >So just why else would she want to see the survey? Bob, you really >aren't THAT naive are you? If you want to stoop to name calling here, I think you are about as cynical as I am naive. So take *THAT* you cynical old curmudgeon! :) All seriousness aside Matt, I don't quite get what you mean. It's pretty obvious to me that my dealer wants to know how they're doing. If the survey is filled out in ink, shown to my sales lady, sealed in an envelope, and mailed out to Hyundai, what's so wrong with that? Now,,, I admit that a free tank of gas for showing the survey COULD possibly influence someone to give the dealer the benefit of the doubt. But changing bad to good, no to yes, 5 to 10? I don't think so! SignatureBob >>Yeah, but they are manipulating the satisfaction scores on the initial >>product by BRIBING the customer with free oil changes, accessories or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > good. Maybe there is an implied quid pro quo, but I didn't feel there > was. My salesman filled mine out for me. I never even saw the answers. But in all honesty, I was completely satisfied with my experience so I didn't really care. Eric >> I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer >> satisfaction [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a rather odd thought, especially if you've ever been around a Chrysler > dealer. The idea is typically to evaluate the initial quality of the car, not the quality of the bribes from the dealer. I've yet to see a J.D. Power "dealer bribe" satisfaction index, yet that is essentially what is being measured at my Hyundai dealer. Matt Do not some other makes' dealers also give-away freebies a la oil changes, car washes, and ye old tire rotations? (s) hopefully not a mickey mouser nor malcolm balderidger nor J.D. Power believer, but i do have respect for those colorful dot-dot-dot CONSUMER REPORTS ratings, even though CR has seemingly given hynudai some short shrift/unfairness in write-ups over the years as noted previously in this n.g. > >> I think everyone now is actively trying to manipulate customer > >> satisfaction [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matt >The idea is typically to evaluate the initial quality of the car, not >the quality of the bribes from the dealer. I've yet to see a J.D. Power >"dealer bribe" satisfaction index, yet that is essentially what is being >measured at my Hyundai dealer. My only survey to date was to rate my dealer service. I recently got an oil change for $28, and Hyundai sent me a survey. I will fill it in honestly and mail it. I may just do it on the Internet, but then, I get no free gas. That seems like wasting perfectly good gas to me! :) Matt, be careful. Bribery takes 2. If you are accusing bribery, you are not only accusing the dealers of offering bribes, but you are also accusing the owners of accepting them. I for 1 take that a little bit personally. Were you offered a bribe? If so, did you take it? What makes you think other owners have less integrity than you? Haven't got a JD Power survey yet, but if I do, it will be filled out with the highest integrity. If my dealer wants to see it, they're welcome. But they won't be filling it out, I will. SignatureBob Matt's right. Maybe not in your particular case. But dealers offer bribes regularly, and customers accept them regularly. >Matt's right. Maybe not in your particular case. But dealers offer bribes >regularly, and customers accept them regularly. I'm sure that Hyundai puts a lot of pressure on the dealers for their sales and service quality. But if the car bombs in the JD Power survey, it's the manufacturer's fault, not the dealer's. (except for certain dealer prepped items, of course) SignatureBob > Matt's right. Maybe not in your particular case. But dealers offer > bribes regularly, and customers accept them regularly. In my case, had I not been happy with the initial quality (it took more than 6 weeks to get the survey in the mail) I would have rejected the bribe offered and filled out and mailed the survey for myself. I just write that so I don't sound like a complete idiot for letting them fill it out for me. I was, and still am, extremely happy with my Sonata. And my bribe was an oil change. I normally do them myself, so taking it to the dealer was actually more of a hardship as far as time and energy are concerned. I did want to see what, if anything, I was missing by not using their service. Eric >> Matt's right. Maybe not in your particular case. But dealers offer >> bribes regularly, and customers accept them regularly. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >concerned. I did want to see what, if anything, I was missing by not using >their service. Really, they could fill my service survey it out for me too. The only stipulation would be that they admit they used the wrong oil (20W50 oil instead of 10W30.) But my oil problem had nothing to do with JD Power. They can fill that survey out for me too, stating the only complaint is the k-thunk in the rear suspension. If they give me free gas, I won't feel a bit guilty. SignatureBob >>The idea is typically to evaluate the initial quality of the car, not >>the quality of the bribes from the dealer. I've yet to see a J.D. Power [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you offered a bribe? If so, did you take it? What makes you think other > owners have less integrity than you? No, I've accepted no freebies from the dealer. I never even got the survey on the dealer that I was told to expect. I did get one on the car from J.D. Power and I filled it out honestly. They only gave room for 4 design defects as I recall, so I couldn't list them all. :-) Bribery doesn't take two, at least not by any definition I've ever seen. If you try to bribe a police officer, the officer doesn't have to accept the bribe in order to arrest you for bribery. Here's one sample definition, but others I've seen are similar. Where did you get the "it takes two" definition? http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1 861592654 Matt > Where did you get the "it takes two" definition? Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted bribery takes 1. SignatureBob >> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition? > > Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted > bribery takes 1. I see no such distinction in any dictionary I've looked at. Do you have a reference or are you just making this up as you go? :-) Matt No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ? Tunez >> Where did you get the "it takes two" definition? > > Don't confuse attempted bribery with bribery. Bribery takes 2. Attempted > bribery takes 1. >No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If >you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ? Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift. SignatureBob >>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go along. If >>you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ? > > Maybe I should have said it takes 1 dishonest person to attempt bribery. It > takes 2 dishonest people to commit bribery. I'm sure you get my drift. Yes, I do. It is a small point, but I believe that bribery has been committed as soon as the offer is made, it doesn't matter if it is accepted or not. The dictionary definitions of bribery relate to making the offer, not completing a transaction, which was my point. So, it only takes two in the sense that the offer is made to as second person, but that second person does NOT need to take any action at all for bribery to have been committed by the first person. Matt >>>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go >>>along. If you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Matt Matt, do you work for Symantec? :-P Eric >>>>No Bob, attempted bribery still takes TWO with ONE refusing to go >>>>along. If you only have ONE who are they trying to bribe ? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Matt, do you work for Symantec? :-P No, what does AV software have to do with bribery? :-) Matt I think that was a pun, Matt. >Matt, do you work for Symantec? :-P Is that word play on "semantics"? :) SignatureBob |
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
|
©2008 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.