 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / January 2008Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler
Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler While the general understanding is that Mercedes is finished with Chrysler, in fact Mercedes may still benefit from their so far ill fated takeover. Unrecognized by most is that Mercedes made Chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for its large cars, and one complete vehicle Chrysler will continue to assemble from Mercedes supplied kits: the Sprinter. Of course, Mercedes must be cautious to provide these parts at competitive prices, lest Chrysler continue to lose money, something that may be more difficult with the fall of the dollar. Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and valuable, Mercedes' remaining stake might be sold for real money. This would be in contrast to the Cerberus deal, where Mercedes claimed it received money for Chrysler, but in actuality paid Cerberus to take 79.9% of Chrysler. The year end Mercedes news conference proved less than enlightening in most respects. While Mercedes spokesman Heinreich Tungensheek expressed disappointment over Chrysler discontinuing the reskinned SLK it sold as the Crossfire, he refused to comment on a question of whether retention of 19.1% of Chrysler was an astute business move. The implication of the question was that the only reason Mercedes still had a stake is Chrysler is because it couldn't afford to give Cerberus any more money to take the remainder. However, the mystery of the pronunciation of DaimlerChrysler was finally resolved. To American eyes, it looked like it should have been pronounced "Dame lur cry slur". Yet ads during Mercedes ownership consistently said "Dime lur cry slur". "It was pronounced 'Dime lur', said Mr. Tungensheek. "The 'Chrysler' was silent". > Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of > Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and > valuable, Mercedes' remaining stake might be sold for real money. > This would be in contrast to the Cerberus deal, where Mercedes > claimed it received money for Chrysler, but in actuality paid > Cerberus to take 79.9% of Chrysler. > The year end Mercedes news conference proved less than > enlightening in most respects. While Mercedes spokesman Heinreich [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it couldn't afford to give Cerberus any more money to take the > remainder. They should have paid me to assume ownership of chrysler... I wouldn't mind having my own car company. >> Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of >> Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wouldn't > mind having my own car company. But at least when they paid Cerbus to take it, they have the possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. If they paid you to take it,...well one can only imagine. Ed >>> Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of >>> Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > possibility that the 19.1% they still own might one day be valuable. > If they paid you to take it,...well one can only imagine. Heaven forbid US car company be product-centric instead of make crap and then use slick marketing to sell it. > >> In article <bxpde393upv1$.o9ycvcms3agu....@40tude.net>, Comments4u > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - or in GMs case cheesy marketing. Actually, I'll have to admit that Bob Lutz is working wonders at GM. In 1987 or so I decided that GMs weren't worth the steel they were stamped from, and for years wondered how they survived. Now it looks like they are putting out quality stuff. I'm actually impressed with the new Malibu and CTS. I Never thought I would say that of a GM car. I guess times change. It sure did take a while though. They'd still have to get rid of their cheesy marketing for me to buy one though. It is kind of offensive to my intelligence. Telling me explicitly that I will be cool if I drive a Cobalt is about as lame as marketing can get. Trick me into thinking that. Don't just try to tell me straight out. It's not as bad as Toyota's insistence on saying 'MPGs.' Can you pluralize that? This car can do lots of MPHs! Okay, I'll stop now. >>>> Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of >>>> Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Heaven forbid US car company be product-centric instead of make crap and > then use slick marketing to sell it. Well, we all know that doesn't work. Just look at the shape Toyota and Honda are in for trying such silly ideas. You should be ashamed of yourself ;-)  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving On Jan 2, 11:55 pm, Comments4u <comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote: > Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > pronounced 'Dime lur', said Mr. Tungensheek. "The 'Chrysler' was > silent". I understand that Chrysler will continue to buy parts from Mercedes. But I fail to see how Mercedes will still turn a profit on their huge investment in Chrysler. To turn a profit they have to eventually recover all of their investment plus earn a reasonable rate of return. I don't know how Mercedes could do more than control their losses. On Jan 2, 11:55 pm, Comments4u <comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote: > Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler > > While the general understanding is that Mercedes is finished with > Chrysler, in fact Mercedes may still benefit from their so far > ill fated takeover. Unrecognized by most is that Mercedes made > Chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for I'm pretty sure the transmission plant in Kokomo Indiana went with Chrysler to Cerberus. > its large cars, and one complete vehicle Chrysler will continue > to assemble from Mercedes supplied kits: the Sprinter. Of course, if Cerberus balks at paying, Daimler also sells it as a Freighliner. > Of course, > Mercedes must be cautious to provide these parts at competitive > prices, lest Chrysler continue to lose money, something that may > be more difficult with the fall of the dollar. > > Also often unrecognized is that Mercedes still owns 19.1% of 19.9% > Chrysler, so if Chrysler eventually becomes profitable and > valuable, Mercedes' remaining stake might be sold for real money. > This would be in contrast to the Cerberus deal, where Mercedes > claimed it received money for Chrysler, but in actuality paid > Cerberus to take 79.9% of Chrysler. 80.1% > The year end Mercedes news conference proved less than > enlightening in most respects. While Mercedes spokesman Heinreich [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pronounced 'Dime lur', said Mr. Tungensheek. "The 'Chrysler' was > silent". > Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Chrysler dependent on them for suspensions and transmissions for > its large cars, Patently false. The LX transmission (the one based on a Benz design, but revised and simplified) is manufactured at the CHRYSLER transmission plant in Kokomo. The suspension parts, likewise, are not truly interchangeable with Benz parts and are made by Chrysler. The break was cleaner than you make it out to be. The "Mercedes" components were all revised and are built in Chrysler plants by Chrysler. In the future, Chrysler may well buy small common-rail diesel engines from Mercedes, but that is functionally no different than buying the big 24-valve CRD from Cummins. Like Cummins, Caterpillar, Perkins, Detroit Diesel, Scania, and others, Daimler-Benz sells diesel engines to many, many OEMs. and one complete vehicle Chrysler will continue > to assemble from Mercedes supplied kits: the Sprinter. For now. I bet the Sprinter will get tossed from the Dodge lineup and only Benz and Freightliner will badge it in the future. >> Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > For now. I bet the Sprinter will get tossed from the Dodge lineup and only > Benz and Freightliner will badge it in the future. If Chrysler was smart, they would develop their own Sprinter equivalent. It has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel delivery field and also in the RV industry for class B and C chassis. The order backlog for the Sprinter is enormous and they sell all they can build. Mike > If Chrysler was smart, they would develop their own Sprinter > equivalent. It has found tremendous acceptance in the parcel > delivery field and also in the RV industry for class B and C > chassis. The order backlog for the Sprinter is enormous and they > sell all they can build. Given the success of the Sprinter, I've wondered why Ford doesn't import a version of it's similar European Van for sale in the US. Ed >>For now. I bet the Sprinter will get tossed from the Dodge lineup and only >>Benz and Freightliner will badge it in the future. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mike Yeah, but that market segment really isn't huge compared to others, and profit margins on RV chassis is not huge either. I have read that even Ford is killing their E-series which has been a really important player in that market for many years. A "big" player in a little market segment isn't necessarily going to help a company that needs to cut fat and get competitive in its core markets again. It will be very interesting to see if Chrysler survives this whole mess. I hope so, but I fear the worst. They have a few promising products either on the market or in the pipe. The new minivan really raises the bar on features leaving Honduh in the dust.... AGAIN, and the Challenger is of course a work of art. But is it enough? Probably not without a small car better (or at least more conventional) than the Caliber and a midsize FAR better than the Avenger/Sebring. We're kinda in another Chrysler slump like happend 1958 and again in 1978. The core engineering (engines/transmissions/major systems) is as good or better than any in the world, but there are gaps in the lineup and problems with some models have tainted the perception of everything. > >>For now. I bet the Sprinter will get tossed from the Dodge lineup and only > >>Benz and Freightliner will badge it in the future. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > either on the market or in the pipe. The new minivan really raises the > bar on features leaving Honduh in the dust.... Actually it hasn't fared well in tests -- both Car & Driver and Consumer Reports continue to rank the Sienna and Odyssey higher, especially in handling and ride (why didn't Chrysler go to independent rear suspension?). Also, as is the case with many current Chryslers, both magazines criticized the cheap, flimsy-looking interiors. >AGAIN, and the > Challenger is of course a work of art. See, I disagree. I think the new Camaro wins the styling contest. Chrysler basically copied the 70s car; GM modernized it. >But is it enough? Probably not > without a small car better (or at least more conventional) than the > Caliber and a midsize FAR better than the Avenger/Sebring. Yeah, they're still depending on trucks for their revenue. The good news is, the current management seems to realize the products have to be improved. Look where recent C&D tests have put Chryslers: Liberty -- bottom minivans -- mid-pack Sebring -- bottom Caliber -- bottom Patriot -- bottom CR about the same, except minivans also near bottom. >We're kinda > in another Chrysler slump like happend 1958 and again in 1978. The core > engineering (engines/transmissions/major systems) is as good or better > than any in the world, but there are gaps in the lineup and problems > with some models have tainted the perception of everything. >>It will be very interesting to see if Chrysler survives this whole mess. >>I hope so, but I fear the worst. They have a few promising products [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually it hasn't fared well in tests -- both Car & Driver and > Consumer Reports continue to rank the Sienna and Odyssey higher, Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle from their own backside. Motor Trend, while not on your list, didn't even include a Ram truck in their Truck of the Year evaluation article, and of course gave TotY to the poseur Toyota Tundra. I'd like to see that thing last one week with the kind of treatment we gave trucks when I was a kid working summers hauling hay with old Fords, Dodges, and Chevies. And its even worse by today's standards: the dumb thing doesn't even have a diesel engine option, the "big" v8 eats its own camshafts, and its absurd to introduce such an over-sized gas-pig at a time like this... but just because its a Toyota, its a foregone conclusion that it will be TotY. And the Ram is *still* the only one with a true truck Diesel engine, has the lowest diesel emissions of any of them, but it doesn't make the list because its a Chrysler product. What a joke. Just remember, these are the same magazines that declared the Renault Alliance CotY, and declared that the first Toyota and Nissan minivans were going to drive Chrysler out of that market, too. :-p And people wonder why I ignore the mainstream automotive magazines... > especially in handling and ride (why didn't Chrysler go to independent > rear suspension?). Also, as is the case with many current Chryslers, > both magazines criticized the cheap, flimsy-looking interiors. Actually, I don't find the new minvan interiors any more flimsy than any other modern mostly-plastic interior myself. And the new seating and entertainment system layouts are just what the 2.5 kid generic American family ordered to move to something with a lot better mileage than a Tahoe or Expedition. You just have to get used to the mainstream automotive press trashing Chrysler. They always have and always will, except for rare moments of insight, like declaring the '69 Roadrunner CotY. >>AGAIN, and the >>Challenger is of course a work of art. > > See, I disagree. I think the new Camaro wins the styling contest. One word: EWWW!!!! But styling is a personal thing. I can't stand the new Camaro, but the Challenger and Mustang both work for me as re-iterpretations of the originals. > >>It will be very interesting to see if Chrysler survives this whole mess. > >>I hope so, but I fear the worst. They have a few promising products [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle from their > own backside. Oh give it a rest. When the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the leading consumer magazine both pan Chrysler products, consider they're right and you are blind. >Motor Trend, while not on your list, didn't even include a > Ram truck in their Truck of the Year evaluation article, Because it isn't new. They only include new vehicles. >and of course > gave TotY to the poseur Toyota Tundra. I'd like to see that thing last > one week with the kind of treatment we gave trucks when I was a kid > working summers hauling hay with old Fords, Dodges, and Chevies. Yada, yada, yada. Grow up. Your blind, chauvanistic cheerleading for Chrysler is tiring and childish. >And its > even worse by today's standards: the dumb thing doesn't even have a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > engine, has the lowest diesel emissions of any of them, but it doesn't > make the list because its a Chrysler product. Learn the basic facts. >What a joke. Just > remember, these are the same magazines that declared the Renault > Alliance CotY, and declared that the first Toyota and Nissan minivans > were going to drive Chrysler out of that market, too. :-p And you have a citation for that? >And people > wonder why I ignore the mainstream automotive magazines... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > automotive press trashing Chrysler. They always have and always will, > except for rare moments of insight, like declaring the '69 Roadrunner CotY. Aries/Reliant, Aspen/Volare, Chrysler minivans, ... They've picked Chrysler products before. > >>AGAIN, and the > >>Challenger is of course a work of art. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > new Camaro, but the Challenger and Mustang both work for me as > re-iterpretations of the originals. Yes, the Mustang does, because it is a re-interpretation. What did Chrysler interpret (as opposed to copy)? >>Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle from their >>own backside. > > Oh give it a rest. When the leading auto enthusiast magazine and the > leading consumer magazine both pan Chrysler products, consider they're > right and you are blind. When my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my opinion, I don't believe I'm blind. > Yada, yada, yada. Grow up. Your blind, chauvanistic cheerleading for > Chrysler is tiring and childish. And your quasi-religious faith in what professional WRITERS (not scientists or engineers) repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. Even they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied customers to point out that Toyota screws up just as much as anyone else, but they do so grudgingly. Yes, Chrysler has made some engineering screw-ups (I give you the 2.7 liter v6...), but they're few and far between. Certainly fewer and further between than the rag writers would have us believe. >>>Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle from their >>>own backside. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > point out that Toyota screws up just as much as anyone else, but they do > so grudgingly. This brings back usenet memories.... Parker still worships Consumer reports and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time on other subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. Of course he won't pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons in SAE's magazine. On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <9s2dnSYCC7PC2R_anZ2dnUVZ_v6rn...@texas.net>, Steve wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > he won't pick up an engineering journal or even read the short verisons > in SAE's magazine. I must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability, fun to drive, etc. If you can tell me which issue that's in... > On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability, fun to > drive, etc. If you can tell me which issue that's in... You wouldn't even accept engineering journals on ABS and stability system design prefering consumer reports and car and driver. But hey, you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting 'science' from the NYTimes, popular science, and national review. The scientific journals lacking the consumer, everyman, type things. But you bash people for that, you deserve it back when you get your ideas of ABS system design from consumer reports. > In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > bash people for that, you deserve it back when you get your ideas of ABS > system design from consumer reports. No, because I'm not talking about how to engineer a car, but whether it's reliable, whether it handles well, etc. Those you get from the people testing them and the owners reporting on them. Science you get from scientists. I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the distinction. >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: >> > On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > it's reliable, whether it handles well, etc. Those you get from the > people testing them and the owners reporting on them. 1) you neglect the term 'brings back memories' 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from? > Science you get from scientists. But you won't get your engineering from engineers. > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the > distinction. That's the old Lloyd I remember.... So, have you learned that correlation is not causation yet? lol... > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > But you won't get your engineering from engineers. I'm not asking for engineering. I'm asking for quality, for reliability, for fun to drive. Tell me which of these are in the realm of engineers. > > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the > > distinction. > > That's the old Lloyd I remember.... So, have you learned that correlation > is not causation yet? lol... Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up, you ask the people using it, not the SAE? > > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > reliability, for fun to drive. Tell me which of these are in the > realm of engineers. Uhhh, Lloyd? Without engineers, you get precisely none of those things. Proper mechanical design and specification make reliability happen. That almost describes engineering. E.P. > > > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Uhhh, Lloyd? Without engineers, you get precisely none of those > things. Totally irrelevant. I want to know if a vehicle has these things. That info only comes from users. Like saying, "Without computer programmers we wouldn't have software, so just ask the software engineers if an app is easy to use." I doubt even you would do that. >Proper mechanical design and specification make reliability > happen. That almost describes engineering. > > E.P. > > > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > E.P. Wrong. If so, BMW and Mercedes and Porsche would have the most reliable vehicles. They don't. There's a LOT more to building a reliable product. > > > > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > > > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Wrong. LOL. Yeah, it springs from the ether. Sure thing, Lloyd. > If so, BMW and Mercedes and Porsche would have the most > reliable vehicles. Maybe they don't have proper design and specification for that particular parameter. Are you really this dumb? > There's a LOT more to building a > reliable product. No, there really isn't. You make an ASSumption that those folks are designing their cars for maximum reliability. I would suggest their design goals put reliability high, but not at the top, of the design criteria lists. Especially Porsche. E.P. >> > > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: >> > > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > reliable vehicles. They don't. There's a LOT more to building a > reliable product. Engineering is a BALANCE of many different things. Different manufacturers weight the factors differently. Some manufacturers weight different products differently. The balance point for a Ford GT is universe away from the balance point for a Taurus. The balance point for a Porsche 911 is in a different universe than a Chrysler minivan. Your childish TV commerical view of engineering is far worse than the view of science had by the people you chastise. On Jan 10, 3:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <cdd803c6-dd39-434e-a064-45192ec3c...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Your childish TV commerical view of engineering is far worse than the > view of science had by the people you chastise. So you're saying Porsche deliberately makes unreliable vehicles? Gee! Of course, that's not what they say. > On Jan 10, 3:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> Engineering is a BALANCE of many different things. Different >> manufacturers weight the factors differently. Some manufacturers weight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So you're saying Porsche deliberately makes unreliable vehicles? > Gee! Of course, that's not what they say. Keep displaying your complete ignorance of engineering Lloyd. How long does a race car's engine last? Why is it reliable for only a such short period of time? How was the design balanced between performance and long term reliability? Have you figured it out yet? On Jan 11, 3:01 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <289987d3-54d5-4349-a4b4-5716a671f...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > On Jan 10, 3:18 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How long does a race car's engine last? This is as relevant to the discussion at hand as talking about the computers in the Space Shuttle when comparing Dell and Mac reliability. >Why is it reliable for only a > such short period of time? How was the design balanced between > performance and long term reliability? Have you figured it out yet? > On Jan 11, 3:01 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > computers in the Space Shuttle when comparing Dell and Mac > reliability. Again you demonstrate you have no clue what so ever about engineering. You don't even grasp the conceptual level. >>Why is it reliable for only a >> such short period of time? How was the design balanced between >> performance and long term reliability? Have you figured it out yet? >> In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: >> >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > reliability, for fun to drive. Tell me which of these are in the > realm of engineers. All of it and more. At some companies the engineers are the industrial designers too. >> > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the >> > distinction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up, > you ask the people using it, not the SAE? CR doesn't give an accurate picture of that. It's such a little club it's about asking Obama supporters what they think Gravel. Anyway, your double standard comes into play here because just like people who aren't chemistry professors aren't interested in reading entire chemistry papers in a journal but just want the jist of it in a simple article, you want the jist of reliability in a simple article. You don't want to read engineering journal articles on the topics, so you'll never know why your favorite publication for the masses is flawed. I deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge problems seem minor or worse, unknown! On Jan 10, 3:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <b20ebab3-753b-4865-91f9-fbde0afad...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > >> In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > CR doesn't give an accurate picture of that. It's such a little club it's Huh? half a million people do the auto survey. > about asking Obama supporters what they think Gravel. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't want to read engineering journal articles on the topics, so you'll > never know why your favorite publication for the masses is flawed. OK, like I asked before, tell me what engineering journal article tells me how reliable a Caravan is, or an Odyssey. > I deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the > worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge > problems seem minor or worse, unknown! And this affects Chrysler differently from Honda how? >> CR doesn't give an accurate picture of that. It's such a little club it's > Huh? half a million people do the auto survey. You still don't get it. a decade and you still don't get it. not worth my time explaining it to you AGAIN. > OK, like I asked before, tell me what engineering journal article > tells me how reliable a Caravan is, or an Odyssey. that's not the argument and you know it. >> I deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the corection ^selecting >> worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge >> problems seem minor or worse, unknown! > And this affects Chrysler differently from Honda how? It means CR's data cannot produce reliable results. On Jan 11, 2:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <645ba709-3d3a-45df-bd32-c93743381...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > >> CR doesn't give an accurate picture of that. It's such a little club it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > that's not the argument and you know it. I pointed out CR is where you can read about reliability and you chided me for not reading SAE engineering journals instead. > >> I deal with reliability issues frequently and self-supporting is the > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It means CR's data cannot produce reliable results. It can for the purpose they're intended -- not as an absolute guide (5% of Caravans experience problems) but as a relative one (a larger % of Caravans experience problems than do Odysseses). > I pointed out CR is where you can read about reliability and you > chided me for not reading SAE engineering journals instead. No, I stated it brought back memories of the great ABS threads where you insisted on getting your engineering from C&D and CR. >> It means CR's data cannot produce reliable results. > It can for the purpose they're intended -- not as an absolute guide > (5% of Caravans experience problems) but as a relative one (a larger % > of Caravans experience problems than do Odysseses). It's worse than reading reviews on amazon.com. At least amazon.com allows people to explain things, they write it out. CR well you get a bunch of symbols. On Jan 14, 5:59 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <729b38cb-1f0f-4a9b-8717-55bc6f645...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > > I pointed out CR is where you can read about reliability and you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > people to explain things, they write it out. CR well you get a bunch of > symbols. Yeah, kind of like graphs in those journals, eh? Gee, you actually have to read some text to know what the graph represents. Maybe CR readers are smart enough to do that. You? > On Jan 14, 5:59 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have to read some text to know what the graph represents. Maybe CR > readers are smart enough to do that. You? Guess that went over your head. It's not I or anyone else can't read the key to see what the symbols mean, it's that CR has by confines of their survey and their data processing has removed the details. For instance, in reading the reviews of a company online or ebay or whatever I tend to hit that 'worst' button and read those. I can tell by what they wrote if they were the dumbass or the company was doing something wrong. Can't do that with CR. No way to tell if their result has been skewed for a particular model by one or three dumbasses who never changed the oil. Can't tell with CR if the results are skewed by people who overly nit-picky for a particular vehicle. There's no way to tell between real fit and finish issues or people who thought the bottom the floor pans should be painted body color and polished. On amazon the guy concerned about polished floor pans is written off as nutty, on CR he impacts the result. >Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up, >you ask the people using it, not the SAE? Really? I thought if you wanted to know how something holds up, you'd try to wear it out under repeatable, verifiable, controlled conditions. (All things CU surveys lack.) >>Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up, >>you ask the people using it, not the SAE? > > Really? I thought if you wanted to know how something holds up, you'd > try to wear it out under repeatable, verifiable, controlled > conditions. (All things CU surveys lack.) Remind me never to mention Lloyd's name again. I think I mentioned something about his absence from RAD in a thread a week or two ago, and speak of the devil. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Remind me never to mention Lloyd's name again. I think I mentioned > something about his absence from RAD in a thread a week or two ago, and > speak of the devil. > > nate That tears it. You owe us all a shiny new crate engine of our choosing... :-) On Jan 11, 9:10 pm, edward ohare <edward_oh...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up, > >you ask the people using it, not the SAE? > > Really? I thought if you wanted to know how something holds up, you'd > try to wear it out under repeatable, verifiable, controlled > conditions. (All things CU surveys lack.) OK, you take hundreds of autos (oh, and 10 model years of each one) and run them each for thousands of miles (oh, and try to get some info in time for it to be useful to people reading it). Or, look up large number statistics and averaging out of conditions. > In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > 1) you neglect the term 'brings back memories' Huh? > 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from? Oh, and you think every engineer is going to be honest "Well, we didn't design good handling into this car?" And reliability ONLY comes about from usage, not from talking to the engineers. Jeez, are you really this dense? > > Science you get from scientists. > > But you won't get your engineering from engineers. I'm not asking for engineering! I'm asking for information only people USING the product can provide. Tell me, do you trust Microsoft about its products or do you listen to what users say? > > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the > > distinction. > > That's the old Lloyd I remember.... So, have you learned that correlation > is not causation yet? lol... >> In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: >> >> In article <487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Huh? Old age getting to you Dr. Parker? >> 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from? > Oh, and you think every engineer is going to be honest "Well, we > didn't design good handling into this car?" > And reliability ONLY comes about from usage, not from talking to the > engineers. Jeez, are you really this dense? *laugh* dishonest as always Parker. Did I say anything about talking to an engineer? No. Although most engineers I've known who were worth anything would tell people straight up if the product they worked on was crap. It was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff I was very familiar with... >> > Science you get from scientists. >> But you won't get your engineering from engineers. > I'm not asking for engineering! I'm asking for information only > people USING the product can provide. > Tell me, do you trust Microsoft about its products or do you listen to > what users say? I see the point has gone right over your head. Remeber the great ABS threads? You argued engineering as it was presented to you by mass media publications. In other threads you chastised people for getting science from mass media publications. That's the memory your recent comments brought back. >> > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the >> > distinction. >> That's the old Lloyd I remember.... So, have you learned that correlation >> is not causation yet? lol... The double replies to the same posts too... where have you been? really it would be much more fun for you to be back and displace gpsman and his gender-nonspecific buddy in CO. On Jan 10, 3:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <32b8ed43-acb7-4b8f-915b-169bab282...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: > >> In article <4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Lloyd wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > crap. It was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff I was > very familiar with... So you're claiming either Chrysler engineers design cars to be unreliable, or they think they are reliable when the owners report they're not? That they're either dumb or dumber? > >> > Science you get from scientists. > >> But you won't get your engineering from engineers. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from mass media publications. That's the memory your recent comments > brought back. Again, I'm not asking for engineering. Whether a Caravan has transmission trouble after 1 year is not something you find in an engineering journal. It's something the owners tell you. And answer the Microsoft question. Who would you go to to find out about their software, their own engineers or the users of the software? It's a simple question. > >> > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the > >> > distinction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it would be much more fun for you to be back and displace gpsman and his > gender-nonspecific buddy in CO. > On Jan 10, 3:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: >> >> 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> crap. It was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff I was >> very familiar with... > So you're claiming either Chrysler engineers design cars to be > unreliable, or they think they are reliable when the owners report > they're not? That they're either dumb or dumber? Nice strawmen parker. >> >> > Science you get from scientists. >> >> But you won't get your engineering from engineers. >> > I'm not asking for engineering! I'm asking for information only >> > people USING the product can provide. >> > Tell me, do you trust Microsoft about its products or do you listen to >> > what users say? >> I see the point has gone right over your head. Remeber the great ABS >> threads? You argued engineering as it was presented to you by mass media >> publications. In other threads you chastised people for getting science >> from mass media publications. That's the memory your recent comments >> brought back. > Again, I'm not asking for engineering. Whether a Caravan has > transmission trouble after 1 year is not something you find in an > engineering journal. It's something the owners tell you. You're purposely missing the point. > And answer the Microsoft question. Who would you go to to find out > about their software, their own engineers or the users of the > software? It's a simple question. I am not following your tangents. >>>Science you get from scientists. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tell me, do you trust Microsoft about its products or do you listen to > what users say? You just proved our side of this discussion. If we listed to what USERS said, well.... MOST computer users do use Microsoft products. But the fact is, I listen to what KNOWLEDGEABLE users say, and most of them try to avoid MS products when there are alternatives. All car "users" are not created equal, but all car "users" get an equal voice in CR. Thus the results are skewed by the perception of non-engineer users who have no understanding of WHY a car is doing something they do or don't like... or for that matter why what they "like" is not what is objectively the best characteristic. > >>>Science you get from scientists. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But the fact is, I listen to what KNOWLEDGEABLE users say, and most of > them try to avoid MS products when there are alternatives. But you should be asking the Microsoft engineers, from what you've been saying in this thread. > All car "users" are not created equal, but all car "users" get an equal > voice in CR. Gee, I didn't realize some owners were worth more than others. Tell me, which owners know if their steering has a problem after a year and which ones don't? >Thus the results are skewed by the perception of > non-engineer users who have no understanding of WHY a car is doing > something they do or don't like... or for that matter why what they > "like" is not what is objectively the best characteristic. And this affects Chryslers differently from Hondas how? >>>>>Science you get from scientists. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But you should be asking the Microsoft engineers, from what you've > been saying in this thread. Uh.... where did I ever imply that we should be asking (only) the car-company engineers (for which the MS engineers would be a metaphor in the foregoeing example. *I* said that I give more credence to what engineering-knowledgable drivers and reviewers (magazines other than CR, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc) have to say. >>All car "users" are not created equal, but all car "users" get an equal >>voice in CR. > > Gee, I didn't realize some owners were worth more than others. Tell > me, which owners know if their steering has a problem after a year and > which ones don't? People who know no better than to list the "engine" as unreliable when they have a problem with the alternator are indeed worth far less (as useful reviewers, not as human beings) than people who know the difference, and know that the alternator is made by Nippondenso and not by Chrysler anyway. > And this affects Chryslers differently from Hondas how? It affects every damn thing CR reviews, which is why the magazine is worthless even for buying a toaster. > >>>Science you get from scientists. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > something they do or don't like... or for that matter why what they > "like" is not what is objectively the best characteristic. From CR: 1. Is this a scientific survey? There are generally two criteria that social scientists use to evaluate the quality of a survey: its validity and its reliability. Validity refers to whether the survey actually measures what it says it does. Reliability refers to whether the information generated by the survey would be repeated if the survey were to be conducted again. We have strong evidence that our survey is both valid and reliable. The questions in the survey are designed professionally by experts in CR's National Research Center, in consultation with our automotive engineers and statisticians. Members of our survey team have more than 30 years of experience in conducting all sorts of consumer surveys. The survey uses an aided response technique that leads respondents through well-defined specific items and gives each respondent the same perspective in answering the questions. The data we report tracks well with other sources of repair and reliability information available on the market. Although we know that auto manufacturers pay close attention to our reports, they have not formally disputed our survey findings, which often identify problems that the manufacturers see in the warranty experience of their vehicles. We conduct a validation test every year and, in more than 30 years, have not found any evidence of bias. From year to year, our subscribers' reports of their problem experiences are fairly consistent; when there is a difference on a particular model, we can often attribute it to known issues with a particular component of a car. 6.2. Is the survey based on a representative sample? A sample is considered to be representative of a population if the relevant characteristics of the population are reflected in the sample. So, considering the population of interest is critical in evaluating the quality of a sample. Our survey sample is drawn from the population of subscribers to ConsumerReports.org and to Consumer Reports magazine. While all subscribers are invited to participate in the survey, participation is voluntary, and there is always the possibility that those who respond are unique in some particular way. For example, subscribers have sometimes questioned whether those who respond are those who have a complaint to make about their cars. To address this concern, we conduct a validation test every year. A representative sample of 8,000 to 10,000 subscribers are mailed the same questions about problem experiences with their cars at the same time as all subscribers are asked to complete the main survey. Using a combination of incentives and follow-up mailings, we attain at least a 40 to 50 percent response rate on this validation sample. The validation sample is known to be representative of the subscriber population; by comparing responses from this sample to responses of the main sample, we can assess whether the main sample is representative of the population overall. In more than 30 years we have not found any biases on any of the questions on any of the topics. One reason for this is that our survey is an omnibus survey asking subscribers not only about their cars, but about a dozen other products, about major services they have used (such as insurance, hotels, and health plans), as well as suggestions for CR. The survey also requests participation in our board of directors election. Many subscribers return surveys reporting that they had no problems at all with their cars in the past year. This is true for all makes and models of cars. So, owners with complaints about their cars are not the only ones who return the survey. Any survey has some sort of sampling frame that limits the people being surveyed. We choose our subscribers as our sampling frame. On average, CR subscribers tend to be more educated and affluent than the general population. With the growth of Consumer Reports online, a wider demographic range of individuals has been surveyed in recent years. However, our reliability questions do not ask respondents about their attitudes or opinions about the reliability of their cars, where one might expect different groups of individuals to have different perspectives. Instead, we ask for factual information about whether specifically defined problems occurred; these types of questions are less sensitive to the nature of the characteristics of the sample itself. Further, our results track well with other sources of reliability information available on the market, and auto manufacturers have not formally disputed our survey findings, which often correspond to problems that the manufacturers see in the warranty experiences of the population of car owners at large. (Read more at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car- reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm#1 >> >>>Science you get from scientists. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > it does. Reliability refers to whether the information generated by > the survey would be repeated if the survey were to be conducted again. Note: Social Science. Basically it's like political poll. It's not technical, it's social. It's about feelings and perceptions not technical fact. A bunch of people really pissed off that a hub cap discolored on a car and it gets bad ratings... but I'm buying it with alloy wheels so the bad rating is misleading for me, but I don't know the rating was caused by discolored plastic hub caps. > And your quasi-religious faith in what professional WRITERS (not > scientists or engineers) repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. Even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > liter v6...), but they're few and far between. Certainly fewer and > further between than the rag writers would have us believe. Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? I've heard the quality of Toyotas and Hondas built in the US is poorer than those built in Japan. A sad story if true. It took Detroit about 10 years to lose the confidence of the American automobile buying public, and it will take a while to get it back as well. Another sad story that it took the Japanese to get Detroit to once again build a quality automobile (which I think is now more often the case than not). The Japanese still build the best quality car though. SMH > Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? And what has that got to do with anything? It still says Toyota. > I've heard the quality of Toyotas and Hondas built in the > US is poorer than those built in Japan. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to once again build a quality automobile (which I think is > now more often the case than not). The Japanese managed to break into the US market by selling some of the poorest designed cars sold in decades. Maybe you are to young to remeber the early 70's Toyotas and Datsun, or the late 70's Hondas, but I am not. I still vidly remember my Sisters 1980 Accord and my 1984 Toyota Cressida - rolling junk and they were "good" Japanese cars. I can also remember the early Civics, Toyota 1200, etc.....cheap, unreliable, slow, ugly, etc., etc., etc.... > The Japanese still build the best quality car though. And your proof is? And how do you define quality? Ed >>Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cars. I can also remember the early Civics, Toyota 1200, > etc.....cheap, unreliable, slow, ugly, etc., etc., etc.... Yes, initially their primary quality was they were cheap. You could get yourself a Honda or Toyota for a lot less than any American vehicle. They really came into their own after the first oil crisis in the early 70's. They were small cars with small engines (underpowered to be sure), but did much better than the more typical 12 mpg of an American car. Then they started building cheap, small, *high quality* cars. They developed reputations for this attribute, while Detroit was squandering their [good] reputations. What's the result for this past year? GMC down 6%, Ford down 13% and Toyota up 12% (if my memory hasn't mangled the numbers: Toyota up, GM/Ford down at least). >>The Japanese still build the best quality car though. > > And your proof is? And how do you define quality? Consumer report surveys. JD Power initial quality surveys. My own [very good] mechanics that admit they seem to see fewer problems with the Japanese made vehicles than the American ones. You're welcome to trash CR. I do myself. But their surveys of longer term car quality is based on people responses, not something they make up. People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of the car would matter. There are lots of Toyotas and Hondas out there so I don't think this is a sampling bias. American cars *do* have more problems, although many of the reports on car quality I have read now put American and Japanese cars very close in quality of build and reliability. The European manufacturers are still quite far out from the Japanese. You have sources of information that dispute this? What are the sources? SMH > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of > the car would matter. There are lots of Toyotas and Hondas > out there so I don't think this is a sampling bias. The very fact that CR sampling is self-reported introduces a bias. An uncontrolled bias. It's a sub-sample of all the buying public that is not random to begin with. Then, from that sub-sample, another non-random sample. It violates the very basis of statistical validation. E.P. > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The very fact that CR sampling is self-reported introduces a bias. An > uncontrolled bias. But there's no evidence the bias affects different makes of cars differently. > It's a sub-sample of all the buying public that is not random to begin > with. Then, from that sub-sample, another non-random sample. > > It violates the very basis of statistical validation. > > E.P. First, CR has never claimed it's a rigid statistical test. But if you think it's biased against one make or for another make, where is your evidence? > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But there's no evidence the bias affects different makes of cars > differently. Wrong. Japanese cars rebranded as American makes get consistently lower reliability ratings. > > It's a sub-sample of all the buying public that is not random to begin > > with. Then, from that sub-sample, another non-random sample. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think it's biased against one make or for another make, where is your > evidence? See above. E.P. > > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Wrong. Japanese cars rebranded as American makes get consistently > lower reliability ratings. First, there are really none anymore -- I guess the Pontiac Vibe, but that's it. And it rates highly in owner surveys too. Secondly, perhaps those people were reporting dissatisfaction with the way the dealer prepped the car, handled problems, etc. > > > It's a sub-sample of all the buying public that is not random to begin > > > with. Then, from that sub-sample, another non-random sample. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > E.P. > > > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > First, there are really none anymore -- I guess the Pontiac Vibe, but > that's it. The very fact that it happened in the first place, never mind "then" or "now", blows up your argument. And if dealer prep somehow makes its way into reliability ratings, then the surveys are WORSE than even I think they are. Again, destroying your contention that the CR rating have some sort of value. E.P. > > > > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The very fact that it happened in the first place, never mind "then" > or "now", blows up your argument. OK, prove it happened. > And if dealer prep somehow makes its way into reliability ratings, > then the surveys are WORSE than even I think they are. Again, > destroying your contention that the CR rating have some sort of value. > > E.P. How so? Why wouldn't a buyer of a Pontiac Vibe want to know what current Vibe owners say about it? Can you think of any other group which would be better to ask about a prospective vehicle? > > > > > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > > > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > OK, prove it happened. LOL. We both know it happened, Lloyd. It has been discussed MANY previous times. If you figure out why it may be that domestic-rebadged Jap stuff got lower ratings, then we can talk. Pretending it didn't happen is lame, even for you. > > And if dealer prep somehow makes its way into reliability ratings, > > then the surveys are WORSE than even I think they are. Again, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How so? Why wouldn't a buyer of a Pontiac Vibe want to know what > current Vibe owners say about it? Certainly. Pretending the results are even remotely scientific is my objection. > Can you think of any other group > which would be better to ask about a prospective vehicle? People who would do real science, I suppose. But there is no mechanism currently for that. So we're stuck with the unscientific opinions of owners, doubly self- selected. E.P. > > > > > > > > People may be more inclined to voice unfavorable experiences > > > > > > > > about their cars, but if so, I would not think the brand of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > LOL. We both know it happened, Lloyd. It has been discussed MANY > previous times. Then I'm sure you can provide some references. Or maybe it's like "Proctor & Gamble's emblem is satanis" -- that's been discussed MANY previous times too. > If you figure out why it may be that domestic-rebadged Jap stuff got > lower ratings, then we can talk. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Certainly. Pretending the results are even remotely scientific is my > objection. Who's doing that? You're raising a strawman argument. > > Can you think of any other group > > which would be better to ask about a prospective vehicle? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > E.P. > > > > > > Wrong. Japanese cars rebranded as American makes get consistently > > > > > > lower reliability ratings. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then I'm sure you can provide some references. Here's the thing, Lloyd - we've played this game before, and you pulled the same crap. The references were posted, after which you dismissed them with some hand-waving. Now, *anyone* can do a little googling and see for themselves. I encourage it, in fact. If you wish to pretend it didn't happen, or that the results don't matter, that's fine by me. Anyone who is at all curious can search and judge for themselves. I don't have any problem with what their conclusions might be. > > > How so? Why wouldn't a buyer of a Pontiac Vibe want to know what > > > current Vibe owners say about it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who's doing that? You are, by claiming the bias doesn't matter. That's a claim you haven't proven. In order for the results to have meaning, the statistics have to be good. If they aren't, the results are biased by their very nature. Doubly-self-selected respondents with no control group provides results which have no meaning. In addition, the surveys use imprecise terms which can be interpretted differently by different people. Which leads CR to the embarrassing results where American rebadged Japanese-built cars get lower reliability ratings than their identical Japanese-badged siblings. The LOL factor is very high. E.P. > > > > > > > Wrong. Japanese cars rebranded as American makes get consistently > > > > > > > lower reliability ratings. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Now, *anyone* can do a little googling and see for themselves. I > encourage it, in fact. References? All I've ever seen you post are blogs and opinions. > If you wish to pretend it didn't happen, or that the results don't > matter, that's fine by me. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You are, by claiming the bias doesn't matter. That's a claim you > haven't proven. Again, if there is bias, why would it be different for Chrysler vs Honda? > In order for the results to have meaning, the statistics have to be > good. If they aren't, the results are biased by their very nature. > Doubly-self-selected respondents with no control group provides > results which have no meaning. In addition, the surveys use imprecise > terms which can be interpretted differently by different people. Simply not true. You can stiull use them for relative comparisons. Or do you think Chrysler owners interpret the questions differently from Honda owners? > Which leads CR to the embarrassing results where American rebadged > Japanese-built cars get lower reliability ratings than their identical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > E.P. >You're welcome to trash CR. I do myself. But their surveys >of longer term car quality is based on people responses, not >something they make up. All that has to be done to finish off the Japanese reputation for high quality is to have all their cars driven, maintained, and the CR surveys filled out by current Ford owners. >> Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > remember the early Civics, Toyota 1200, etc.....cheap, unreliable, slow, > ugly, etc., etc., etc.... I'm old enough to remember the Vega Pinto and so on. >> The Japanese still build the best quality car though. > > And your proof is? And how do you define quality? How about drive it. > The Japanese managed to break into the US market by selling some of > the poorest designed cars sold in decades. Maybe you are to young to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cars. I can also remember the early Civics, Toyota 1200, > etc.....cheap, unreliable, slow, ugly, etc., etc., etc.... All I remember is that the early Honda engines self destructed (somewhere shy of 100k mile IIRC?) in normal use, though that can't be said of their engines today. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> The Japanese managed to break into the US market by selling some of >> the poorest designed cars sold in decades. Maybe you are to young to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >All I remember is that the early Honda engines self destructed >(somewhere shy of 100k mile IIRC?) in normal use, Really? Where I was, they all the Hondas were rusted in half before anyone could drive them that far. > Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? Don't know or care where it was designed. Its built in the US- they built a whole new plant near San Antonio just for that vehicle. That doesn't change the fact that its the wrong vehicle for the times- its the ultimate in a city truck poseur gas-hog. No real work truck option, but its HUGE anyway. At least the Honda Ridgeline didn't pretend to be a real working pickup truck. >> Isn't the Tundra a largely US designed and built truck? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but its HUGE anyway. At least the Honda Ridgeline didn't pretend to be a > real working pickup truck. That may be true but most pickup trucks on the road today, and for quite a few years in the past, have not been work trucks. The Tundra pretty much matches what the market for a half ton pickup truck is now days. "Gas hog"??? I wouldn't think 15-20 mpg would be considered "gas hog" given that's pretty much what the Fords, Dodges and Chevys get. SMH > That may be true but most pickup trucks on the road today, > and for quite a few years in the past, have not been work > trucks. But with Ford/Dodge/GM, that is a matter of how they are *optioned* by the buyer, and all are at their core work vehicles and can be bought as low-optioned rubber-floor-mat vehicles. > "Gas hog"??? I wouldn't think 15-20 mpg would be considered > "gas hog" given that's pretty much what the Fords, Dodges > and Chevys get. They're pretty comparable *empty*, but loaded there's a huge difference. The Big 3 all have diesels for highly fuel-efficient heavy duty work. The Tundra does not. If you want to tow a big trailer with a Tundra, you're stuck with a sub-10 mpg gasoline v8 combination just like back in the days of the V10 gasoline Ram or a 454 Chevy. Admittedly the bigger Toyota v8 has the power to handle a load like that very well, but its going to suck down gas at a prodigious rate. OTOH, the diesels can give mid teens economy with a loaded trailer. Even the very early diesel Dodge Ram (non-intercooled 1990 12-valve Cummins and 3-speed non-lockup automatic!) would give 14 mpg with a fully loaded 5th wheel cattle trailer. Been there, seen that, had to pick my jaw up off the floor. The difference between gas and diesel is that the thermodynamic efficiency of a turbo-diesel goes up with increasing load, so the net result is that fuel mileage decreases less with increasing load on the turbo-diesel than it does on a normally-aspirated gasoline engine. >I've heard the quality of Toyotas and Hondas built in the >US is poorer than those built in Japan. That has certainly been my experience. >A sad story if true. Indeed. Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> > >>Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle from their > >>own backside. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And your quasi-religious faith in what professional WRITERS (not > scientists or engineers) repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to me. Yeah, professional tester |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message