 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / January 2009Consumers Reports Seeks Bailout
The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. In its petition, Consumers Reports cites the costs of massive restructuring due to circumstances totally beyond its control. Consumers Reports claims that since it doesn't take advertising, it is the only unbiased source of product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that must be preserved. The magazine's anticipated restructuring costs are due to the impending demise of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. With those companies gone, and only foreign cars to rate, CRs reliability ratings will indicate a statistical impossibility: all vehicles are better than average. It was originally thought the data could be adjusted at minimal cost using standard statistical methodology so an appropriate number of vehicles would be rated below average. However CR learned standard statistical methodology cannot be used to ajust data not compiled using standard statistical methodology. The compilation of CRs reliability data starts when someone subscribes to the magazine. They then read an article in CR on the vehicle they own which tells them whether its good or bad. Then they receive the reliability questionaire, which they answer according to the CR article. "Somehow we have to get some vehicles rated below average", said CR spokesman Justin Jest "but we can't just produce a bunch of negative articles on foreign vehicles over night. It takes time. And money. We need and deserve government help. This problem is not of our making" Initially, negative articles are planned on the companies formerly associated with the Detroit automakers, Isuzu, Mazda, and Mitsubishi. A template for the articles has already been prepared. "Estimated reliability is suspect, as <Isuzu/Mazda/Mitsubishi> was formerly associated with <GM/Ford/Chrysler>." But still, that won't be enough as these companies have minimal market share. "They're going to have to take aim at one of the big boys to get the numbers" said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute. "They're counting on India's Tata Motors coming to America, but while that will give them the bottom end, the numbers will be too small." Mr. Camel thinks Kia is the only possible target. When asked if perhaps Toyota or Honda might be a better target for lower reliability ratings, Mr. Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's religion". > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just > grown [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's > religion". Cute. -Dave > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. Very funny! Who will be next to ask for handouts? The Salvation Army? dan >> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just >> grown [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > dan I predict...Microsoft. Bill Gates Will drive from Seattle to D.C. personally to plead that software pirates and funny Mac commercials have cut into his profits severely, and Microsoft can not meet their profit goals without Trillions of dollars of government bailout money to keep the shareholders happy. -Dave >> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown >> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. >> >Very funny! Who will be next to ask for handouts? The Salvation Army? My bet would be on the catholic church - all those perverted preachers of theirs, you know.... -- "Here comes another con hiding behind a collar His only God is the all mighty Dollar He ain't no prophet, He ain't no healer He's just a two bit, goddamn money stealer!" --Suicidal Tendencies >>> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown >>> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > He's just a two bit, goddamn money stealer!" > --Suicidal Tendencies 3 cheers! :-) > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just > grown longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Mr. Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking > people's religion". funny. Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply state the PERCENTAGE of failure rate that is actually what the current ratings are reflecting? Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up and no longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products ;) > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just > grown [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's > religion". > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently > using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply state [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products > ;) Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before spouting off and looking stupid? 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 Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It can not be stated accurately as a 'list.' On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently > using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply state [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > products > ;) Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before spouting off and looking stupid? 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 >Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It >can not be stated accurately as a 'list.' Learn how to quote and post, and then DON'T get back to us, "Mike", you top-posting idiot. On 12/11/08 9:21 PM, in article 43m3k4pkqa3vvlujlh1d13r3a2fsfc8e0h@4ax.com, >> Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It >> can not be stated accurately as a 'list.' > > Learn how to quote and post, and then DON'T get back to us, "Mike", > you top-posting idiot. Oh God, Dizzy's back. Time to update the spam filter. >>> Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It >>> can not be stated accurately as a 'list.' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Oh God, Dizzy's back. Time to update the spam filter. Aww, then you might miss my "I told you so" about how I was right about everything, all along. Right about SUV's. Right about the deficit spending. Look at where you short-sighted dimwits have gotten us. Shut up Dizzy >>>> Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It >>>> can not be stated accurately as a 'list.' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Look at where you short-sighted dimwits have gotten us. And in case you look here for the comment Shut up Dizzy On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are > currently [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > products > ;) > Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before > spouting > off and looking stupid? 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 I have read it and I still believe the little circle over emphasize small differences, that may not be statistically valid. In the discussion they talk about the average circle representing a failure rate of 2.5% (not an actual value, but their example). Do you think that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough so that you can cut things that fine (the difference between average and excellent is 2.5% and there is "very good in between)? And then consider that the sample is not a random sample. People choose to participate. And the only people who have that choice are Consumer Reports readers. So the people who respond are opinionated, motivated people who like Consumer Reports. Don't you suppose they are likely to be biased towards agreeing with CR's editorial opinions? Ed On Dec 12, 8:49 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Ed So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation? If you were correct, all the cars low on CR's scoring would be rated unreliable too, and vice-versa? That's simply not true. Look at the articles. Or are you claiming readers look at what other readers say about reliability, and then next year, like sheep, write down the same things? That's simply ludicrous. And if so, no car would ever change its reliability, and many do. >So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to >report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you >have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation? Not wild at all. The Toyota Corolla and its Chevy clone often were rated differently. On Dec 12, 11:27 am, edward ohare <edward_oh...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to > >report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you > >have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation? > > Not wild at all. The Toyota Corolla and its Chevy clone often were > rated differently. "4.7. Why are there sometimes considerable differences in reliability between "related" or "twin" models? Some variants of similar vehicles have different reliability results in our survey. Although you might expect that related vehicles, or "twin" models, would have very similar reliability histories, there are a number of factors that can lead owners to have different reliability experiences with these models. Some differences can be attributed to different equipment, such as different transmissions, suspension tuning, or power equipment. Some related models may be manufactured in different plants. While their designs might be quite similar, by being built in separate facilities they may be subject to different manufacturing processes, such as differences in quality control. Some model variants that share the same design but have different equipment level or body style can lead to differences in reliability. For example, the V6 version of the Chrysler Sebring has below average predicted reliability, but the 4-cylinder version had average reliability. The V6 offered more standard equipmentthan the 4-cylinder and had more power equipment and audio problems. The redesigned for 2008 Chrysler Sebring Convertible has much worse than average predicted reliability. The convertible body style contributed to more body hardware and squeaks and rattles in addition to electrical, power equipment, and audio problems. These are some examples of factors that may cause seemingly similar models to have different reliability profiles. We carefully examine the data for all related models, and if the data show that their reliability profiles are similar, we will combine their data to yield more robust results. We believe, though, in the accuracy of our data, and we have a commitment to report the experiences our subscribers share with us. In some cases, they report different reliability experiences with closely related models." SNIP could haves and might bes > We believe, though, in the accuracy of our data, There you have it, Lloyd. They believe. >and we have a commitment to report the experiences our subscribers >share with us. How nice. They're reporting the "experiences of our subscribers", not the reliability of the cars. > In some cases, they report different reliability >experiences with closely related models." Isn't that a red flag? Apparently "experiences of our subscribers" has some subjectivity to it. > >and we have a commitment to report the experiences our subscribers > >share with us. > How nice. They're reporting the "experiences of our subscribers", not > the reliability of the cars. How else? The only ones that might have more accurate data - ie from a larger sample - would be the makers via their dealers, and they're not going to be honest about such things in public. Quite the reverse - they lie through their teeth. It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...  Signature*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a >small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one... I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned. What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions. > >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on > >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a > >small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one... > I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned. > What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions. I do look at the UK versions findings - but wouldn't let them *decide* for me on something like a car. Domestic appliances, yes. IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is simply another appliance. Signature*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Another good source of reliability/breakdown info would be the major motoring organisations and I have never understood why the British ones don't publish whereas the German ADAC does (or did). Maybe the UK RAC/AA are too scared of the car makers...?... DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- >> >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on >> >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is > simply another appliance. >> >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on >> >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is >simply another appliance. That isn't true in the case of CR. Their chief engineer is definitely a car guy who was hanging around test tracks long before he was old enough to drive. If he tests a sports car and it isn't fun to drive, it is going to bomb big time. If it is a minivan test, that is a different matter. > >IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like > >those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car > >is simply another appliance. > That isn't true in the case of CR. Their chief engineer is definitely > a car guy who was hanging around test tracks long before he was old > enough to drive. If he tests a sports car and it isn't fun to drive, > it is going to bomb big time. If it is a minivan test, that is a > different matter. I'm sure they employ enthusiasts - but do they write the articles? The UK one puts different emphasis on a car's qualities than the average motoring mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a motoring mag test - it will often give extra information. Signature*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like >> >those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a motoring mag test - >it will often give extra information. I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out. They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only a tiny little trunk / boot. SignatureDan. >>> >IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like >>> >those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only >a tiny little trunk / boot. Downrating a sporty car 'cuz the "ride is too firm" is the sort of nonsense that results in the 2008 WRX getting the suspension mushyed up so you have to install aftermarket parts to get that "its on rails" kinda handling that my 2005 WRX has. Complaining about a "too firm" ride is the mark of a test done by somebody's grandpa, not an enthusiast. I remember when the early 90's Corvette, the new generation of that time, came out and posted something over 1.0 G. cornering force. Then some pinhead complained about a "too firm ride", and the next thing you know, we got to say goodbye to the >1.0 G cornering. What is that? Car entropy? > >I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out. > >They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only > >a tiny little trunk / boot. > Downrating a sporty car 'cuz the "ride is too firm" is the sort of > nonsense that results in the 2008 WRX getting the suspension mushyed up > so you have to install aftermarket parts to get that "its on rails" > kinda handling that my 2005 WRX has. > Complaining about a "too firm" ride is the mark of a test done by > somebody's grandpa, not an enthusiast. I remember when the early 90's > Corvette, the new generation of that time, came out and posted something > over 1.0 G. cornering force. Then some pinhead complained about a "too > firm ride", and the next thing you know, we got to say goodbye to the > 1.0 G cornering. What is that? Car entropy? The laugh is the MX5 is said to be a modern incarnation of the original Lotus Elan - which had a superb ride for a sports car of its day. Signature*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >Downrating a sporty car 'cuz the "ride is too firm" is the sort of nonsense >that results in the 2008 WRX getting the suspension mushyed up so you have to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >thing you know, we got to say goodbye to the >1.0 G cornering. What is that? >Car entropy? It's certainly possible for even a sports-car to be "too firm". Suspension suitable for pulling 1G on a racetrack is probably "too firm" for most roads and most people. IMO, any such suspension should be optional. > >I'm sure they employ enthusiasts - but do they write the articles? The > >UK one puts different emphasis on a car's qualities than the average > >motoring mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a > >motoring mag test - it will often give extra information. > I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out. > They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only > a tiny little trunk / boot. They gave those as reasons not to like it - or is that your spin? If there were pros and cons, then it's right they mention what they find. Stupidly small storage might well be a problem for some prospective owners. Signature*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out. >> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only >> a tiny little trunk / boot. >They gave those as reasons not to like it - or is that your spin? If there >were pros and cons, then it's right they mention what they find. >Stupidly small storage might well be a problem for some prospective owners. As I recall, these were reported as shortcomings in the car and they factored into its overall CR rating. To be fair, CR subsequently published several readers' letters ridiculing their criticisms of the car, given its target market. SignatureDan. > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:55:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Dan. Really? Betcha you can't cite a reference. BTW, the Miata is CR's top pick for sports car. >> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out. >> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only >> a tiny little trunk / boot. >Really? Betcha you can't cite a reference. > >BTW, the Miata is CR's top pick for sports car. I only keep that last 5 years or so of CR. I can't be arsed to do the research or look it up anywhere just to play a silly game with you. Unless you want to bet me $500 or so, then I'll do it, because I'm right and you'd lose. Let me know what you want to do. SignatureDan. >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:55:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Really? Betcha you can't cite a reference. Consumer Reports, April 1990. SignatureIt's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress On Dec 17, 4:24 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another Federal promise to pay. >On Dec 17, 4:24 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another >Federal promise to pay. That's one of those apocalyptic events it's basically impossible to prepare for. Your best bet at that point would be to be buddies with the leader of a country with a strong military and a financial system not strongly tied to the US dollar, the Euro, the Pound, or the Yen. I'd suggest chatting up Vladimir Putin. SignatureIt's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress > If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then > currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another > Federal promise to pay. I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973. > > If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then > > currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another > > Federal promise to pay. > > I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973. Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold standard was ended in the '30's). from Wikipedia: "In March 1964, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon halted redemption of Silver Certificates for Silver Dollars. In the 1970s, large numbers of the remaining silver dollars in the mint vaults were sold to the collecting public for collector value. Silver Certificates were abolished by Congress on June 4, 1963 and all redemption in silver ceased on June 24, 1968. Paper currency is still valid legal tender without the Silver Certificate, instead being backed simply by the perceived strength of the U.S. economy. According to the U.S. treasury, "The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are 'backed' by all the goods and services in the economy."[1]" But you have a point -- currency is no longer backed up by an offer of direct exchange for a specific commodity. Although, one might say that the Federal Reserve backs up currency by accepting it from banks in exchange for electronic funds, and you can use currency to purchase Federal securities. So what's the point of putting it under your mattress? It has no intrinsic value, as noted above, which was MY point. If the economy goes under (and it's becoming apparent that if the US economy goes under so will the rest of the world) we'll be left with barter. What can you stash that someone else would take in exchange for food? The reason one might stash cash under the mattress is to protect it from creditors of bust banks. As a number of the major 'high/main' street banks in the UK are now largely under government ownership the risk of default is reduced, plus the major creditor would be the taxpayer... DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- [...] > So what's the point of putting it under your mattress? It has no > intrinsic value, as noted above, which was MY point. > If the economy goes under (and it's becoming apparent that if the US > economy goes under so will the rest of the world) we'll be left with > barter. What can you stash that someone else would take in exchange > for food? >>> If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then >>> currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another >>> Federal promise to pay. >> I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973. > Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold > standard was ended in the '30's). Nope. What ended in the '30s was the legality of owning gold in the US. Gold was a controlled substance for 40 years -- and when FDR imposed the rule (by executive order, not law), he did it on a Saturday when the banks were closed, and had federal agents open and raid every safe deposit box in the US, take the gold, and leave paper money in its place. But foreign governments continued to be allowed to redeem dollars for gold at the official price of $35/ounce until 1973, when Nixon "closed the gold window". Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Harry Browne and Howard Ruff wrote books about it that are. On Dec 24, 12:50 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > >>> If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then > >>> currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Harry Browne and Howard Ruff wrote > books about it that are. "Ruff's Little Book of Big Fortunes in Gold & Silver: A Middle Class License to Print Money" lends all sorts of confidence, man. > On Dec 24, 12:50 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > License to Print Money" > lends all sorts of confidence, man. This is all rather off topic, but .... The gold *standard* ended with the foundation of the Federal Reserve (anathema to John Galt ;-) in 1914. The fact that the Treasury was willing under some circumstances to exchange gold for foreign currency does not make it the standard for the dollar. The Britannica has a good article on it. >>> IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like >>> those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a motoring mag test - > it will often give extra information. There's two parts to all this. There's the actual vehicle test and editorial which reflects CR's emphasis on safety and reliability. Then there's the surveys they do of owners in which the owners report on any problems they've had. They have a huge sample size, and while the respondees are limited to magazine subscribers that choose to fill out the survey, there's no reason to believe that a Toyota owner would be any more likely to lie than a Ford owner. You could make the case that the Toyota owner has higher expectations and is more likely to nitpick and that the Ford owner has lower expectations and is less likely to nitpick. You could also make the case that the Toyota owner is so enamored of Toyota that they overlook problems and that the Ford owner is so disgusted with Ford that they nitpick on little things. In reality, neither of these scenarios has any likelihood of skewing the results given the huge sample size. > It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on > the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a > small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one... Well stated. You see that all the time. CR will have a poll based on thousands of responses to detailed surveys and someone will claim, 'well obviously they're biased, I have that product and mine is fine.' The survey isn't asking the subscriber their opinion of every vehicle, they are gathering only the subscriber's personal experience with their own vehicle. One of my favorite CR issues is the one where they survey on cellular providers in 20 or so metro areas. Their results consistently match the results of every other survey by every other independent publication. Of course you still have people extremely upset by the results, with the same sort of thing, 'my sample of one, trumps their sample of 50,000. > > It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on > > the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a > > small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one... > Well stated. You see that all the time. CR will have a poll based on > thousands of responses to detailed surveys and someone will claim, 'well > obviously they're biased, I have that product and mine is fine.' Yup. And can't be bothered to read the article fully where it explains that perhaps 80% of all vehicles (on average) will be totally fault free. > The survey isn't asking the subscriber their opinion of every vehicle, > they are gathering only the subscriber's personal experience with their > own vehicle. Indeed. And of course for every person who hates their car and tries to run it down there will be others who do the reverse. > One of my favorite CR issues is the one where they survey on cellular > providers in 20 or so metro areas. Their results consistently match the > results of every other survey by every other independent publication. Of > course you still have people extremely upset by the results, with the > same sort of thing, 'my sample of one, trumps their sample of 50,000. My findings too. A few years ago Jaguar got a poor score on reliability by the UK CA based on members survey results. And made a big fuss about it being too small a sample to be accurate. But didn't comment (probably never even read) on the bit where those same members liked their Jaguar very much and would recommend it to a friend... My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though - there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which simply doesn't happen with modern cars. Signature*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some > replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though - > there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them > that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which > simply doesn't happen with modern cars. For vehicles, Consumer Reports emphasizes reliability and safety. Yet many of us have bought vehicles knowing full well that they are neither the most reliable or the safest, but have other characteristics that we value. Some are items that are extremely important to a small subset of people. I made a list a long time back of things that I needed to consider when selecting a vehicle, and few are considered by Consumer Reports, but they can be important considerations to some buyers. Exterior -------- 1. 5 mph bumpers 2. Sufficient front and rear ground clearance for speed bumps, steep driveways, dips, parking stones, etc. 3. Trunk with low liftover 4. No difficult trim that will make the car a pain to wax. 5. Hood springs instead of prop stick 6. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in trunk lid 7. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in rear bumper Doors & Windows & Mirrors ------------------------- 1. All door windows fully framed OR PROVEN DESIGN FRAMELESS WINDOWS 2. Rear windows open on 2 door models. 3. Power mirrors (mechanical inside controls at a minimum). 4. Folding outside mirrors 5. No glass mount rear view mirror. 6. Power door locks, especially on minivans or wide vehicles 7. Drivers side sliding door on minivans Audio ----- 1. Radio/Cassette has built in CD-Changer controller for non-proprietary CD changer. 2. CD changer that mounts under seat rather than in trunk 3. Standard radio antenna (non-windshield, non-power) Interior -------- 1. High quality supportive seats 2. Easy entry/exit for 6' person 3. Rear seat headroom enough for 5 10" person. 4. Passenger hand grips above all doors (except driver's) 5. Usable cup holders 6. Multiple Cup holders (4 minimum). 7. Remote fuel door release. 8. Rear cargo cover for SUVs Safety ------ 1. Side air bags 2. Rear headrests 3. Minimum of 4 star rating for both passenger and driver. 4. Steel safety cage or equivalent body strength 5. Good overall rating from IIHS. 6. Traction control. 7. No daytime running lights, or easily defeatable DRLs. 8. Head curtain air bags Engine/Transmission ------------------- 1. Oil filter accessible from top (or otherwise easily accessible) 2. 0-60 in <12 seconds 3. Able to climb I-80 up to Donner Pass at 60MPH minimum (or similar test depending on your area). 4. Minimum of 7500 miles between REQUIRED oil changes 5. Long engine and power train warranty (5 year 60K minimum) 6. Non-interference engine (yeah, I know this is getting hard to find) 7. Sealed coolant recovery system (very rare except on European cars) 8. Selectable shift points 9. Cruise control maintains speed on uphill (unlike my Honda CR-V) 10. Front accessible engine 11. Engine has a history of reliability (i.e. no history of oil burning, sludge, cracked heads, timing chain failures, etc.). Brakes & Wheels --------------- 1. Wheels can accept tire chains or cables (S type okay) 2. High quality brakes with thick rotors 3. Spare tire does not mount on rear door 4. ABS 5. Tire size is 'super-standard' not uncommon (expensive) size 6. Full size spare Exhaust ------- 1. Long or lifetime warranty on exhaust system 2. Stainless steel exhaust system Body ---- 1. Galvanized steel body NVH --- 1. Low engine noise, wind noise, and road noise Fuel Economy ------------ 1. 30mpg or higher fuel economy for a car, 20MPG for a minivan, 25MPG for a mini SUV, 18 MPG for a full size SUV. 2. 300 mile minimum range Accessories ----------- 1. Ability to mount a trailer hitch, even if just for a bike rack 2. Accepts Thule or Yakima rack with loading up to the limit you need (varies based on what you want to carry, i.e. skis, canoes, bicycles, lumber, cargo box, etc.) 3. Sufficient towing capacity for your needs (needs vary of course) 4. Roof rack mounting without load bearing on roof (i.e. structural steel rain gutters). 5. EASY mounting system for baby seats, sides and middle 6. Extra cigarette lighter outlets 7. Cigarette lighter socket not in ashtray, and/or auxiliary sockets 8. Provision for fog lights if not standard 9. Pre-wired for alarm Insurance --------- 1. Low to moderate insurance cost 2. Low theft rate Dealer Specific --------------- 1. No pinstriping 2. No dealer logos (removeable if present) 3. Dealer not wash car before delivery since they often do it poorly and scratch the paint. On 12/13/08 9:30 AM, in article ayQ0l.13969$Ws1.2129@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com, >> My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some >> replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though - [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > 3. Dealer not wash car before delivery since they often do it poorly > and scratch the paint. I think you have limited yourself to a very small subset of vehicles, and of those, almost nothing new will meet all your criteria. > I think you have limited yourself to a very small subset of vehicles, and of > those, almost nothing new will meet all your criteria. No, I know that compromises would have to be made. Some of those I classify as "absolutely required," some as "strongly preferred," and some as "would be nice." What I want to avoid is overlooking key requirements, as I've seen happen when some people post on Usenet asking for help to solve intrinsic problems with their vehicles because of overlooking things when buying. I.e. I've know people to buy vehicles without checking that there is enough clearance for tire chains, then when they go to buy chains they find out that they can't use them on their vehicle. >My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some >replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though - >there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them >that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which >simply doesn't happen with modern cars. Right. All Consumers Reports is doing is trying to maintain an illusion that there is relevance to inaccurately measuring the insignificant. > >My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some > >replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though - > >there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them > >that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which > >simply doesn't happen with modern cars. > Right. All Consumers Reports is doing is trying to maintain an > illusion that there is relevance to inaccurately measuring the > insignificant. You've not understood the previous posts, have you? ;-) Signature*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >You've not understood the previous posts, have you? ;-) Sure I do. Other factors mean more to me than what CR thinks is important. > SNIP could haves and might bes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Isn't that a red flag? Apparently "experiences of our subscribers" has > some subjectivity to it. Or maybe different versions come from different factories. For example, the early 1990s Ford Escort hatchbacks were made in the US, but the sedans were from a plant in Hermosillo, Mexico that Ford rated more highly, and Consumer Reports said that the sedans were slightly more reliable. Please cite a car quality survey that's extensive but doesn't reflect the experiences of the car owners. > >So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to > >report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you > >have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation? > > Not wild at all. The Toyota Corolla and its Chevy clone often were > rated differently. Not by much, and when comparably equipped (for part of one model year, when the Chevy/Geo Nova/Prizm lacked a front anti-sway bar that the Corolla included) they ranked right next to each other. The same was true of the Toyota Matrix and its clone, the Pontiac Vibe. Where did you get your information that said the ratings for the clones were different? On Dec 13, 3:35 am, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to > > >report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Where did you get your information that said the ratings for the > clones were different? I can't find any news of Consumer's Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) asking for a bail out. Where did that news come from? Frankly, I'd rather see my tax money going to rescue CU than GM. One greedily promotes cars regardless of quality or of societal/ environmental impact, while the other endeavors to help the average person avoid being ripped off. But, regardless, the only news I found was a CU recommendation that any bailout money be spent with strings attached to protect consumers and to avoid waste. Here are its recommendations: http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/006177.html If anyone has a link to news about CU asking for money, I'd like to see it. Thanks! > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently > using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply state > the PERCENTAGE of failure rate that is actually what the current ratings are > reflecting? CR does show the percentages of failures, but you have to look at the very beginning of their tables to see them. > Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up and no > longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is actually > showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard > statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products > ;) But all cars don't fall within that range, and the differences in reliability increase with age: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/3028768304_e171d9a42f_o.jpg How do you explain that? That does not change the fact that what CR is showing as a 'list' of which is above or below average is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products over an identical time period. In any event one chances of getting one of the 98% that are trouble free is far greater than ones chances of getting one of any particular manufactures vehicles that is within the 2% failure rate. That is why they all offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce. Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home something with those odds makes little sense. You are for more likely to get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2% regardless of the name on the hood. ;) >> Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently >> using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > How do you explain that? > Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently > using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > How do you explain that? > That does not change the fact that what CR is showing as a 'list' of which > is above or below average is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > far greater than ones chances of getting one of any particular manufactures > vehicles that is within the 2% failure rate. But they don't. Popular Mechanics also surveys owners, and almost always, at least 5% of them report a problem within the first year, with 10% being more common. > That is why they all offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce. Warranties also protect manufacturers. > Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home something with those odds > makes little sense. RR isn't known for high reliability, and neither are German luxury brand autos. > That does not change the fact that what CR is showing as a 'list' of which > is above or below average is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles > are falling within the standard statistical methodology of the 2% failure > rate for ALL manufactured products over an identical time period. What you state is not true. At least not in our universe. > In any event one chances of getting one of the 98% that are trouble free is > far greater than ones chances of getting one of any particular manufactures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2% > regardless of the name on the hood. ;) So your claim is that there are no differences between makes in terms of reliability? That's so far-fetched, I doubt even you believe it. > >> Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently > >> using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > How do you explain that? >Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up and no >longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is actually >showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard >statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products >;) Well, yea, they can say that the chance of failure is twice as high for one vehicle as another, but its twice something that's near zero anyway. So what's the likely effect on me? One repair every 10 years? Every 20 years? One in my lifetime? Major manufacturers are close enough in quality I just buy what I like and what I need. > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > foreign cars to rate, CRs reliability ratings will indicate a statistical > impossibility: all vehicles are better than average. This is a joke - right ? On Dec 12, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This is a joke - right ? Yes, it's a joke. :) I bought it at first too though. > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that > must be preserved. Have a look at consumerdistorts.com for the rest of the story. >> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown >> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Have a look at consumerdistorts.com for the rest of the story. Where has Dizzy gone? SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. What's really pathetic is the number of people here that read it and actually thought it was real. They fit right up there with those that think the moon landing was faked, and that Bush was a good President. I could not find Consumer Reports requesting a congressional hearing in any news story. Please provide a link. Thanks, Dave On Dec 10, 6:22 pm, Comments4u <comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote: > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's > religion". >I could not find Consumer Reports requesting a congressional hearing >in any news story. Please provide a link. Thanks, Dave Perhaps this will get you started on understanding what has happened: http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 SignatureDan. > The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown > longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > foreign cars to rate, CRs reliability ratings will indicate a statistical > impossibility: all vehicles are better than average. Consumer Reports perform a valuable service and shouldn't be mocked this way. >> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just >> grown [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Consumer Reports perform a valuable service and shouldn't be mocked this > way. If we did not have C.R., we would have to rely on the lies of the manufacturers or on the lies of the front companies they would set up in secret to spread their lies. C. R. provides an excellent and very reliable service. Unfortunately, like many of us they find themselves in a hole ---- all because of the crooks that ran Wall St and sucked the system dry, aided and abetted by the crooked politicians that ran recent governments. |
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.