|
Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr
econceived-notions Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 1. Toyota 2. Honda 3. Ford 4. Cadillac 5. Mercedes-Benz 6. GMC 7. Lexus 8. BMW 9. Chevrolet 10. Volvo Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 1. Scion 2. Acura 3. Honda 4. Toyota 5. Lexus 6. Infinity 7. Subaru 8. Hyundai 9. Mitsubishi 10. Kia yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. infinity but no nissan? |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On Jan 12, 8:10 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > >http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...-brands-vs-you... > > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > > > 1. Toyota > > 2. Honda > > 3. Ford > > 4. Cadillac > > 5. Mercedes-Benz > > 6. GMC > > 7. Lexus > > 8. BMW > > 9. Chevrolet > > 10. Volvo > > > Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > > > 1. Scion > > 2. Acura > > 3. Honda > > 4. Toyota > > 5. Lexus > > 6. Infinity > > 7. Subaru > > 8. Hyundai > > 9. Mitsubishi > > 10. Kia > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. > > infinity but no nissan? Nissan is still plagued by the Mississippi built Pathfinders & Armadas. They bring down the whole name. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
At least among it 320,000 subscribers most of whom are reported to be import
buyers, not the average of the 16,000,000 buyers that bought NEW cars in each of the past five years. I wonder what the results would be if CR sampled the extra one to three million buyers annually, that had GM being that far ahead of any other manufactures in sales annually? "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-95770C.08582912012009@mara100-84.onlink.net... > http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Whoah!!.... wait a sec...
Ford is perceived as reliable?? On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr >econceived-notions > > >Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > >1. Toyota >2. Honda >3. Ford >4. Cadillac >5. Mercedes-Benz >6. GMC >7. Lexus >8. BMW >9. Chevrolet >10. Volvo > > > >Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > >1. Scion >2. Acura >3. Honda >4. Toyota >5. Lexus >6. Infinity >7. Subaru >8. Hyundai >9. Mitsubishi >10. Kia > > > >yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Mike Hunter wrote: > At least among it 320,000 subscribers most of whom are reported to be import > buyers, not the average of the 16,000,000 buyers that bought NEW cars in > each of the past five years. > > I wonder what the results would be if CR sampled the extra one to three > million buyers annually, that had GM being that far ahead of any other > manufactures in sales annually? Aren't you familiar with statistical sampling theory? |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. But...but...a Scion is a Camry with a coupe body and Celica suspension and brakes... |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote in news:pan.2009.01.13.04.11.49.95016@e86.GTS: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > >> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...brands-vs-your >> -pr econceived-notions >> >> >> Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 >> >> 1. Toyota >> 2. Honda >> 3. Ford >> 4. Cadillac >> 5. Mercedes-Benz >> 6. GMC >> 7. Lexus >> 8. BMW >> 9. Chevrolet >> 10. Volvo >> >> >> >> Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 >> >> 1. Scion >> 2. Acura >> 3. Honda >> 4. Toyota >> 5. Lexus >> 6. Infinity >> 7. Subaru >> 8. Hyundai >> 9. Mitsubishi >> 10. Kia >> >> >> >> yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. > > > But...but...a Scion is a Camry with a coupe body and Celica suspension > and brakes... Depends what Scion. Some are Yaris/Echo-based. Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above Toyota's other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of makes one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? -- Tegger |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-95770C.08582912012009@mara100-84.onlink.net... > http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception < Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability < Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. To quote, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies; Damn Lies and Statistics." Mark Twain....He was right on once more.... DaveD |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Tegger wrote:
> Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above Toyota's > other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of makes > one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. -- sjs |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-95770C.08582912012009@mara100-84.onlink.net... > http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception < Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability < Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. They are basing the "real" numbers on the bogus Consumer Reports survey. A non-random, non-scientific, beauty poll of CR readers who feel like responding. The results are interesting, but not statistically significant. Ed |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
In article <gki0pm$s6s$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote: > Tegger wrote: > > > Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above Toyota's > > other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of makes > > one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? > > > On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact > same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like > maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In > such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. Ergo, the fact that Buick keep coming in tops in the JD Power and similar ratings. When you drive the car 6000 miles in 7 years, what do you expect? |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
<hageyama@hairdresser.net> wrote in message news:b5f3a863-8633-407b-8bb6-5d21ffc54023@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > Mike Hunter wrote: >> At least among it 320,000 subscribers most of whom are reported to >> be import >> buyers, not the average of the 16,000,000 buyers that bought NEW >> cars in >> each of the past five years. >> >> I wonder what the results would be if CR sampled the extra one to >> three >> million buyers annually, that had GM being that far ahead of any >> other >> manufactures in sales annually? > > Aren't you familiar with statistical sampling theory? I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self selected subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people who choose to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). Ed |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9B91EF7152DF3tegger@208.90.168.18... > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote in news:pan.2009.01.13.04.11.49.95016@e86.GTS: > >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...brands-vs-your >>> -pr econceived-notions >>> >>> >>> Brand Perception Â< Top 10 >>> >>> 1. Toyota >>> 2. Honda >>> 3. Ford >>> 4. Cadillac >>> 5. Mercedes-Benz >>> 6. GMC >>> 7. Lexus >>> 8. BMW >>> 9. Chevrolet >>> 10. Volvo >>> >>> >>> >>> Brand Reliability Â< Top 10 >>> >>> 1. Scion >>> 2. Acura >>> 3. Honda >>> 4. Toyota >>> 5. Lexus >>> 6. Infinity >>> 7. Subaru >>> 8. Hyundai >>> 9. Mitsubishi >>> 10. Kia >>> >>> >>> >>> yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. >> >> >> But...but...a Scion is a Camry with a coupe body and Celica >> suspension >> and brakes... > > > > Depends what Scion. Some are Yaris/Echo-based. > > Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above > Toyota's > other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of > makes > one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? Why would a Toyota owner ever question CR opinions? Ed |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in
news:gki0pm$s6s$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com: > Tegger wrote: > >> Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above >> Toyota's other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. >> Sort of makes one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? > > > On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact > same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like > maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In > such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. > That's exactly my point. The survey results are not as valid as people think they are because the survey makers have not controlled for owner behavior. In other words, the survey reflects the owner as well as the car, which is useless to me unless I'm buying a used car. Consumer Reports reliability surveys have the same problem. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in
news:Xns9B925673532C9tegger@208.90.168.18: > > Consumer Reports reliability surveys have the same problem. > > Sorry, I failed to realize this *IS* CR's own survey. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> Ergo, the fact that Buick keep coming in tops in the JD Power and > similar ratings. > > When you drive the car 6000 miles in 7 years, what do you expect? LOL! Ain't that the truth! Need to show it to my 90 year old mom who still drives a Buick, maybe 5 miles a week. Incredible gas mileage, according to her. B~ |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9B9256C5C7EB1tegger@208.90.168.18... > Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote in > news:Xns9B925673532C9tegger@208.90.168.18: > > >> >> Consumer Reports reliability surveys have the same problem. >> >> > > > Sorry, I failed to realize this *IS* CR's own survey. > > > -- > Tegger > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ > www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ I take CR and JDPowers with a grain of salt and usually 10 grains of asprin. JDPower's Initial Quality survey means very little. Most cars can be made to look good on the showroom floor. What's the car look like and act like at 5 years or 10? Is it still responding well in traffic? How's the body holding up after a few Chicago winters with all the metal-eating salt? What's the engine look like after sloging through some traffic jams with the AC on in some of our 95-degree summers? How's it doing for repairs? Mostly scheduled maintenance, or a shop queen? Any handling quirks? When I buy a car, I expect about 5 years out of it before I have to start thinking about replacing it. It's not like a computer. I just need to get from A to B, reliably. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gkibqa$75i$1@news.motzarella.org... > When I buy a car, I expect about 5 years out of it before I have to > start thinking about replacing it. It's not like a computer. I > just need to get from A to B, reliably. ONLY 5 years???? I trade cars often, but not because they have problems. I just like new cars or the type of car I want changes (I like convertibles, but usually after three years of owning one, I decide to go back to a sedan). However, at times I have had to hang on a car for a long time. I won't even consider buying a car that I don't think will last 12 to 15 years and 200k miles. I have only kept four vehicles anywhere near that long, and they were all Fords (all relatively problem free), but I don't intend to start out buying a car with the idea it is going to be reliable for only 5 years. I've never sold a car of my own that wasn't in good condition at the time of the sale (but I have traded-in a few that were horrid). For instance, when I sold my 1997 Expedition with 150k miles, I was sure it was capable of doing another 50k miles with no significant problems. Or when I sold by 1986 Sable to a co-worker, I had no doubt he could drive it to at least 200k miles (he actually exceeded that before totaling it in an accident). I have purchased cars that after I bought them I decided were not going to be reliable (notably a Toyota Cressida, Plymouth Reliant, Audi Coupe, Saturn Vue, and multiple British Sports Cars) and I usually got rid of them as soon as practical (well except for the British Sports Cars - they were like a drug to me). Ed |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:32:19 +0000, Tegger wrote:
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote in news:pan.2009.01.13.04.11.49.95016@e86.GTS: > >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:58:29 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...brands-vs-your >>> -pr econceived-notions >>> >>> >>> Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 >>> >>> 1. Toyota >>> 2. Honda >>> 3. Ford >>> 4. Cadillac >>> 5. Mercedes-Benz >>> 6. GMC >>> 7. Lexus >>> 8. BMW >>> 9. Chevrolet >>> 10. Volvo >>> >>> >>> >>> Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 >>> >>> 1. Scion >>> 2. Acura >>> 3. Honda >>> 4. Toyota >>> 5. Lexus >>> 6. Infinity >>> 7. Subaru >>> 8. Hyundai >>> 9. Mitsubishi >>> 10. Kia >>> >>> >>> >>> yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. >> >> >> But...but...a Scion is a Camry with a coupe body and Celica suspension >> and brakes... > > > > Depends what Scion. Some are Yaris/Echo-based. I was referring to my tC... > > Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above Toyota's > other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of makes > one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? One thing I was thinking about after reading this post last night: Scions aren't pumped out in the same mass quantities as the Camry or other Toyota units, and there might be a little more attention to detail when the cars are rolling down the line. The one disturbing thing is that a *LOT* of tC owners complain about rattles and squeaks, especially from the hatch. Luckily, this is something mine does not suffer from, although there is a nasty squeak from behind the dash when the temperature gets below 40 degrees F. Interesting that Scion has shuch high numbers, but the Celica which was made in limited quantities from 1999-2006 had a LOT of complaints... |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:18:02 -0500, St. John Smythe wrote:
> Tegger wrote: > >> Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above Toyota's >> other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. Sort of makes >> one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? > > > On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact > same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like > maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In > such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. Then why does Scion rate higher? I don't really pound on my tC, but I don't baby it either. It has 165 HP, and I use it to a fair advantage. Did I ever mention this car is *FAST* ? |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Perhaps, any car can go fast but it certainly is anything but quick if one
needs to get our of the way. "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.01.13.21.02.16.982572@e86.GTS... > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:18:02 -0500, St. John Smythe wrote: > >> Tegger wrote: >> On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact >> same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like >> maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In >> such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. > > Then why does Scion rate higher? > > I don't really pound on my tC, but I don't baby it either. It has 165 HP, > and I use it to a fair advantage. > > Did I ever mention this car is *FAST* ? > > > |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... > > I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self selected > subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people who choose > to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). > > Ed > That's been a complaint I have had about CR's "polling" for a very long time. Their surveys are useless. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Tegger wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in > news:gki0pm$s6s$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com: > >> Tegger wrote: >> >>> Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above >>> Toyota's other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. >>> Sort of makes one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? >> >> On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact >> same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like >> maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In >> such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. >> > > > That's exactly my point. > > The survey results are not as valid as people think they are because the > survey makers have not controlled for owner behavior. > > In other words, the survey reflects the owner as well as the car, which is > useless to me unless I'm buying a used car. > > Consumer Reports reliability surveys have the same problem. > > It seems to me that you are overlooking the real reason. Scion only makes about 4 vehicles, and they are based on solid, simple platforms. Toyota makes many more vehicles, and there is no Scion V-6 Camry automatic, so Toyota takes the hit for the few models it makes that are less reliable. Pretty obvious, to me at least... |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-95770C.08582912012009@mara100-84.onlink.net... > http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception < Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability < Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. Howing plowed through all of the posts -- or at least most of them -- I guess the conclusion is that there are no reliable statistical data vis "reliability." So, you go with what has worked for you over the years, I suppose. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
That's true once they start selling a half million or more of a model more
of the 2%, that they all make that are not up to snuff, begin to appear. "Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message news:Atebl.7881$1k1.3054@newsfe14.iad... > Tegger wrote: >> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in >> news:gki0pm$s6s$2@n4vu2.n4vu.com: >>> Tegger wrote: >>> >>>> Still, it's passing strange that Scion is several points above >>>> Toyota's other two brands when they all share the exact same parts. >>>> Sort of makes one question the quality of the surveys' methods, no? >>> >>> On the surface, yes, but consider the case of two cars with the "exact >>> same parts" under the skin, one marketed to people that drive like >>> maniacs and the other marketed to people that drive like Grandma. In >>> such a case, a difference in reliability wouldn't be surprising. >>> >> >> >> That's exactly my point. >> >> The survey results are not as valid as people think they are because the >> survey makers have not controlled for owner behavior. >> >> In other words, the survey reflects the owner as well as the car, which >> is useless to me unless I'm buying a used car. >> >> Consumer Reports reliability surveys have the same problem. >> >> > > It seems to me that you are overlooking the real reason. Scion only > makes about 4 vehicles, and they are based on solid, simple platforms. > Toyota makes many more vehicles, and there is no Scion V-6 Camry > automatic, so Toyota takes the hit for the few models it makes that are > less reliable. Pretty obvious, to me at least... |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
I wonder how many of the 16,000,000 buyers the bought vehicles in 2006, are
among CR's reported 320,000 subscribers and the percentage of those 320,000 subscribers respond to their surveys? "Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote in message news:HKidnYXYLIH-wPDUnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@sedona.net... > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... >> >> I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self selected >> subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people who choose >> to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). >> >> Ed >> > > That's been a complaint I have had about CR's "polling" for a very long > time. Their surveys are useless. > > Mike > |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://consumerist.com/5127337/the-1...nds-vs-your-pr > econceived-notions > > > Brand Perception ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Toyota > 2. Honda > 3. Ford > 4. Cadillac > 5. Mercedes-Benz > 6. GMC > 7. Lexus > 8. BMW > 9. Chevrolet > 10. Volvo > > > > Brand Reliability ‹ Top 10 > > 1. Scion > 2. Acura > 3. Honda > 4. Toyota > 5. Lexus > 6. Infinity > 7. Subaru > 8. Hyundai > 9. Mitsubishi > 10. Kia > > yeah. That's right. The numbers show the reality. It's interesting to see the perception, since the reliability surveys from CR are simply the results of owners of each brand filling out a survey about problems they've had with the vehicles. Since it's a huge statistical sample, the CR reliability ratings are very accurate. I think it was a good idea for CR to publish the perception list, because I've often seen posts from people that don't understand both statistical sampling and the survey methodology. Some people believe that the CR reliability ratings are actually just the perceptions of the people filling out the survey, and they don't realize that what's being surveyed is actual owner's experiences with the vehicles _not_ what the survey takers believe is the most reliable vehicle. Similarly, many people have no concept of statistical sampling and margins of error, believing that if you don't survey every single owner you don't have enough information to make reliability predictions. Separating perception from reality should solve the first misconception, though explaining sampling theory is more difficult. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... >> I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self selected >> subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people who choose >> to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). For the perception part of it you're correct. But for the reliability side, the owners are simply filling out the survey for the vehicles they own. Unless you believe a Toyota or Honda owner is less likely to put down actual problems in the survey than a Ford or GM owner, the surveys are statistically sound. Who knows, maybe a Toyota or Honda owner has much higher expectations and would complain more about defects than a Ford or GM owner that expects more problems. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:0Qubl.14253$c45.12358@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... >>> I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self >>> selected subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people >>> who choose to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). > > For the perception part of it you're correct. But for the reliability > side, the owners are simply filling out the survey for the vehicles they > own. Unless you believe a Toyota or Honda owner is less likely to put down > actual problems in the survey than a Ford or GM owner, the surveys are > statistically sound. Who knows, maybe a Toyota or Honda owner has much > higher expectations and would complain more about defects than a Ford or > GM owner that expects more problems. > > You see the problem - that the group is self-selected and therefore statistically unsound. We can't arbitrarily say there are no differences that would cause a Toyota or Honda owner to have different motivations than a Ford or GM owner, especially since we hear from Japanese or American brand partisans so frequently. In the same way we can't say just what the effect of those passions and prejudices are. The results would also vary depending on when the owner bought the car. Was it brand new, in its second year or in its fourth year? The owner experience and the gist of what he reports will depend on that - particularly whether he owned it during its first year of life - to a great extent but it is not included in CR's methodology. The surveys are also susceptible to "gaming": if a 2004 Malibu (for example) owner wanted to improve the market value of the car he is planning to sell, he can send in very many responses claiming to be another perfectly satisfied owner even if his car was actually a lemon. Similarly, if he wanted to buy a 2008 Camry he could flood CR with reports that he had nothing but trouble with his (fictional) 2008 Camry in hopes of driving the market price down. No matter how you slice it, CR surveys are a textbook example of sample selection problems. Any resemblance to typical owner experience is coincidental. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:3Lubl.14250$c45.3861@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... > > It's interesting to see the perception, since the reliability surveys from > CR are simply the results of owners of each brand filling out a survey > about problems they've had with the vehicles. Since it's a huge > statistical sample, the CR reliability ratings are very accurate. > > I think it was a good idea for CR to publish the perception list, because > I've often seen posts from people that don't understand both statistical > sampling and the survey methodology. Some people believe that the CR > reliability ratings are actually just the perceptions of the people > filling out the survey, and they don't realize that what's being surveyed > is actual owner's experiences with the vehicles _not_ what the survey > takers believe is the most reliable vehicle. Similarly, many people have > no concept of statistical sampling and margins of error, believing that if > you don't survey every single owner you don't have enough information to > make reliability predictions. Separating perception from reality should > solve the first misconception, though explaining sampling theory is more > difficult. > The problem is that perennial bugaboo of statistics, sample selection. As you say, a small *truly random* sample is plenty. Beginning stat textbooks are fond of pointing out that even teh largest nation's election could be precisely predicted by fewer than a hundred properly selected samples. That's just way the math side of it works. Getting a random sample is invariably the biggest challenge to any survey, and CR doesn't even pretend to try. Self-selection - even when it is more subtle than CR's open invitation format - will turn any survey to trash. Many a survey has been invalidated by the mere fact that in most cases the potential respondents can't be compelled to respond, and can't be compelled to respond honestly. No quantity of self-selected respondents can produce usable results. And that is the case with CR's surveys. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Dnsbl.80910$2w3.65478@newsfe19.iad... > > Howing plowed through all of the posts -- or at least most of them -- I > guess the conclusion is that there are no reliable statistical data vis > "reliability." So, you go with what has worked for you over the years, I > suppose. > > That's about all you can do for new cars. I prefer used cars, with at least 70K miles on them. 100K miles is the sweet spot; at 50K it is hard to tell how a car has been treated and how it is holding up, but at 100K it is hard to hide. I have developed a method that works for me... at considerable cost over the years. There are a handful of mechanical checks I do for any used car, taking about ten minutes, a flashlight and a pair of coveralls (plus an ODBII reader for 1996 and later cars). But even more important is some internet searching for complaints. Usenet, reviled as it is, is a gold mine. I have ruled out Subarus in the year range I am interested in because of the prevalence of head gasket and "torque bind" posts at alt.autos.subaru, and the regulars responded very frankly when I asked what the deal was with those problems. Good people on alt.autos.ford gave me their best skinny on models to seek and models to avoid. These are not statistically valid, of course, but I am not planning to write a doctoral dissertation. I want to know what to look for. Instead of some insipid chart showing poorer than average reliability for the engine (whatever that may mean) I know that failure to "burp" a 2.5L Subaru engine after changing the coolant will quickly lead to head gasket failure. New cars are a riskier proposition. Changes from one year to another can plunge buyers into nightmares, and if you are going to keep a car for, say, five years the model isn't safe to buy until it has been relatively unchanged for five years. I have owned only three new cars in my life, and the first two (1970 Mercury Capri and 1984 Dodge 600ES) were two of the most troublesome cars I've ever owned. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message > news:0Qubl.14253$c45.12358@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>> news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... >>>> I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self >>>> selected subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people >>>> who choose to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). >> For the perception part of it you're correct. But for the reliability >> side, the owners are simply filling out the survey for the vehicles they >> own. Unless you believe a Toyota or Honda owner is less likely to put down >> actual problems in the survey than a Ford or GM owner, the surveys are >> statistically sound. Who knows, maybe a Toyota or Honda owner has much >> higher expectations and would complain more about defects than a Ford or >> GM owner that expects more problems. >> >> > You see the problem - that the group is self-selected and therefore > statistically unsound.We can't arbitrarily say there are no differences > that would cause a Toyota or Honda owner to have different motivations than > a Ford or GM owner, especially since we hear from Japanese or American brand > partisans so frequently. It all balances out with such a huge sample. It's not a double-blind study, but you'd never get that. Even if you sampled randomly you'd still have the different motivations of the different owners. It's not perfect, but it's a very large sample with a very small margin of error. > In the same way we can't say just what the effect > of those passions and prejudices are. The results would also vary depending > on when the owner bought the car. Was it brand new, in its second year or in > its fourth year? The CR subscriber base tends to be higher income and more highly educated. It's unlikely that they'd be buying used cars. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Michael Pardee wrote:
> Getting a random sample is invariably the biggest challenge to any survey, > and CR doesn't even pretend to try. Self-selection - even when it is more > subtle than CR's open invitation format - will turn any survey to trash. > Many a survey has been invalidated by the mere fact that in most cases the > potential respondents can't be compelled to respond, and can't be compelled > to respond honestly. No quantity of self-selected respondents can produce > usable results. And that is the case with CR's surveys. You're confusing "usable results" with the "perfect results" of a double-blind random survey. Unless you believe that a large number of the subscribers that respond to the survey are intentionally lying only about certain vehicles, while telling the truth about others, the reliability survey is in fact very usable. You have to take it for what it is, a survey of owner's experiences of the reliability of their vehicles, with results only reported if a sufficient number of respondents own the vehicle in question. If 30% of Camry owners report problems with the transmission, and 5% of Accord or Taurus owners report similar problems, you have some usable information. Maybe a double-blind random survey would have slightly different percentages, but the information in the CR survey is still valid. It doesn't matter what the survey is, or what the source is, you always have people that don't like the results trying to attack it if it's not a double blind random survey. You see the same thing with the CR survey on cellular carriers, the largest survey of its kind. Again, you have a few subscribers of the carriers that do extremely poorly year after year whining that the perception of Verizon of a carrier with superior coverage is causing the Verizon subscribers to rate it highly, while the AT&T subscribers somehow are out to bash AT&T. This is despite the fact that every other survey from non-advertiser based organizations reports the same results. Then you have the people that are confused about quality versus quantity, claiming that since McDonald's sell the most hamburgers of any restaurant, that proves that McDonald's has the best hamburgers, and that since GM sells more vehicles than Honda or Toyota in the U.S., that proves that GM produces the best vehicles. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
On 1/14/2009 9:14 PM Michael Pardee spake these words of knowledge:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message > news:0Qubl.14253$c45.12358@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>> news:gki38m$jh0$1@news.motzarella.org... >>>> I am not an expert, but I don't think you should consider a self >>>> selected subgroup of a self selected group to be a valid sample (people >>>> who choose to subscribe to CR who choose to respond to the CR survey). >> >> For the perception part of it you're correct. But for the reliability >> side, the owners are simply filling out the survey for the vehicles they >> own. Unless you believe a Toyota or Honda owner is less likely to put down >> actual problems in the survey than a Ford or GM owner, the surveys are >> statistically sound. Who knows, maybe a Toyota or Honda owner has much >> higher expectations and would complain more about defects than a Ford or >> GM owner that expects more problems. >> >> > You see the problem - that the group is self-selected and therefore > statistically unsound. We can't arbitrarily say there are no differences > that would cause a Toyota or Honda owner to have different motivations than > a Ford or GM owner, especially since we hear from Japanese or American brand > partisans so frequently. In the same way we can't say just what the effect > of those passions and prejudices are. The results would also vary depending > on when the owner bought the car. Was it brand new, in its second year or in > its fourth year? The owner experience and the gist of what he reports will > depend on that - particularly whether he owned it during its first year of > life - to a great extent but it is not included in CR's methodology. > > The surveys are also susceptible to "gaming": if a 2004 Malibu (for example) > owner wanted to improve the market value of the car he is planning to sell, > he can send in very many responses claiming to be another perfectly > satisfied owner even if his car was actually a lemon. Similarly, if he > wanted to buy a 2008 Camry he could flood CR with reports that he had > nothing but trouble with his (fictional) 2008 Camry in hopes of driving the > market price down. In addition to the responses SMS gave you, Michael, your last paragraph is incorrect. As I recall, each subscriber only gets one survey. The factors which can (not will, mind you, but can) skew results are reasonably well understood, and generally apply across the board to responders. For example, CR subscribers, on average, take better care of their vehicles than non-subscribers. This is attributable to the higher than average level of education, as is their higher level of income. But since these factors apply to the general population of subscribers (rather than, say, only the Ford owners), no inherent skew is apprehended. There are other factors, and some of them may present variations in the distribution curve; for there to be a great deal of variation, though, we would have to impute that the results were invalid. Toyotas and Hondas are not generally more reliable than other vehicles, for example. The observable world doesn't seem to support such a conclusion. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- Nihilism means nothing to me. |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:0JDbl.13239$yr3.5639@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:0Qubl.14253$c45.12358@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> >> You see the problem - that the group is self-selected and therefore >> statistically unsound.We can't arbitrarily say there are no differences >> that would cause a Toyota or Honda owner to have different motivations >> than a Ford or GM owner, especially since we hear from Japanese or >> American brand partisans so frequently. > > It all balances out with such a huge sample. It's not a double-blind > study, but you'd never get that. Even if you sampled randomly you'd still > have the different motivations of the different owners. > No - the problem increases with larger samples. In fact, the poor sample selection makes the size of the sample totally irrelevant. For example, if you are doing a survey of luxury homes built by premiere architects and are collecting your data by asking people who pass you at the exit of WalMart, more answers only mean more useless responses. There is no cure for sample selection errors. > It's not perfect, but it's a very large sample with a very small margin of > error. > It's a sample with an indefinite margin of error. When samples are properly selected the margin of error is a simple calculation, but when the samples are contaminated the margin of error can't be calculated. With a properly selected sample set the margin of error drops like a rock with more samples and it is rare that more than a hundred samples are necessary, but when the sample selection process is flawed the margin of error is unpredictable after the first sample is collected and never improves. > >> In the same way we can't say just what the effect of those passions and >> prejudices are. The results would also vary depending on when the owner >> bought the car. Was it brand new, in its second year or in its fourth >> year? > > The CR subscriber base tends to be higher income and more highly educated. > It's unlikely that they'd be buying used cars. > You have data on those assertions, perhaps? I gave up on CR when I was about 20 because they often incorporated their stupid ideas into their reviews; as an avid cyclist their shocking recommendation of "dual action brake levers" on bicycles (now a thing of the past - the current high end devices of the same name are completely different from the dangerous levers of the 70s CR was touting) tore it for me. I have six figures on my W2 again this year and have worked in high tech jobs since I was 17, when I put my first class FCC radiotelephone license to use. I have only recently bought my third new car ever and have bought 11 used cars that I can recall. New cars are a blind wager and the depreciation is not the sort of thing most intelligent people welcome... unless they are so rich they don't care how much trouble a car is anyway. Of course the CR readers (maybe not the ones who respond to the surveys, but who knows?) could still be highly educated; intelligence and education are distinct concepts. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:496f2a4e$0$4876$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshostin g.com... > On 1/14/2009 9:14 PM Michael Pardee spake these words of knowledge: > >> >> The surveys are also susceptible to "gaming": if a 2004 Malibu (for >> example) owner wanted to improve the market value of the car he is >> planning to sell, he can send in very many responses claiming to be >> another perfectly satisfied owner even if his car was actually a lemon. >> Similarly, if he wanted to buy a 2008 Camry he could flood CR with >> reports that he had nothing but trouble with his (fictional) 2008 Camry >> in hopes of driving the market price down. > > In addition to the responses SMS gave you, Michael, your last paragraph is > incorrect. As I recall, each subscriber only gets one survey. > Thanks for the correction, Dave. I must be behind the times - there used to be an on-line survey that was anonymous, but I could also be mistaken that it was CR. I withdraw that objection. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:6WDbl.13240$yr3.4997@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> Getting a random sample is invariably the biggest challenge to any >> survey, and CR doesn't even pretend to try. Self-selection - even when it >> is more subtle than CR's open invitation format - will turn any survey to >> trash. Many a survey has been invalidated by the mere fact that in most >> cases the potential respondents can't be compelled to respond, and can't >> be compelled to respond honestly. No quantity of self-selected >> respondents can produce usable results. And that is the case with CR's >> surveys. > > You're confusing "usable results" with the "perfect results" of a > double-blind random survey. > > Unless you believe that a large number of the subscribers that respond to > the survey are intentionally lying only about certain vehicles, while > telling the truth about others, the reliability survey is in fact very > usable. You have to take it for what it is, a survey of owner's > experiences of the reliability of their vehicles, with results only > reported if a sufficient number of respondents own the vehicle in > question. If 30% of Camry owners report problems with the transmission, > and 5% of Accord or Taurus owners report similar problems, you have some > usable information. Maybe a double-blind random survey would have slightly > different percentages, but the information in the CR survey is still > valid. > > It doesn't matter what the survey is, or what the source is, you always > have people that don't like the results trying to attack it if it's not a > double blind random survey. You see the same thing with the CR survey on > cellular carriers, the largest survey of its kind. Again, you have a few > subscribers of the carriers that do extremely poorly year after year > whining that the perception of Verizon of a carrier with superior coverage > is causing the Verizon subscribers to rate it highly, while the AT&T > subscribers somehow are out to bash AT&T. This is despite the fact that > every other survey from non-advertiser based organizations reports the > same results. > > Then you have the people that are confused about quality versus quantity, > claiming that since McDonald's sell the most hamburgers of any restaurant, > that proves that McDonald's has the best hamburgers, and that since GM > sells more vehicles than Honda or Toyota in the U.S., that proves that GM > produces the best vehicles. > You are demonstrating the worst effect of selection errors - the apparent usability of useless results. Double blind techniques are used to prevent reporting and collection bias when the sample has already been selected, and that doesn't apply here. Randomness is important here, and that is where CR's surveys are most seriously deficient. In your example of transmission problems, we can see how that works. If ten percent of Camry owners are interested in responding to the survey, and of those 30% are interested because they had transmission problems while the rest are interested because they loved their car so much or they had some other complaint, the result would be to magnify the transmission problem from as little as 3% in the real world to 30% in the survey results because 30% of respondents (not owners) complained about their transmissions. Conversely, if 90% of Taurus owners felt compelled to respond because there were daggers embedded in the driver's seat (seating comfort = poor) but only 5% of those had transmission problems, the survey results would be as you describe... although the reality would be that the Camry transmission failure rate was as little as half the Taurus rate rather than six times as high. We can't even say what the actual rate was for Camrys even though we know - as CR does not - only 10% of Camry owners responded, because we don't know what the other 90% experienced. Did they have no complaints at all, or did a lot of them have transmission trouble and were tired of dealing with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection for more. In the first link, the heading "Overcoming selection bias" warns, "In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone..." Anyway, to each his own. When I have occasionally looked at CR's predictions for cars I have owned I have been struck by how far off base they usually were (although they got pretty close to my experience once!) And to give them their due, when a problem is as pervasive as the AC and tranny failures were for the 1993 and 1994 Volvo 850s they picked up on that. If you want to credit them you can. Personally, I regard the CR surveys as not worth my attention. I have access to a dartboard that is as reliable. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:6WDbl.13240$yr3.4997@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> Getting a random sample is invariably the biggest challenge to any >> survey, and CR doesn't even pretend to try. Self-selection - even when it >> is more subtle than CR's open invitation format - will turn any survey to >> trash. Many a survey has been invalidated by the mere fact that in most >> cases the potential respondents can't be compelled to respond, and can't >> be compelled to respond honestly. No quantity of self-selected >> respondents can produce usable results. And that is the case with CR's >> surveys. > > You're confusing "usable results" with the "perfect results" of a > double-blind random survey. > > Unless you believe that a large number of the subscribers that respond to > the survey are intentionally lying only about certain vehicles, while > telling the truth about others, the reliability survey is in fact very > usable. You have to take it for what it is, a survey of owner's > experiences of the reliability of their vehicles, with results only > reported if a sufficient number of respondents own the vehicle in > question. If 30% of Camry owners report problems with the transmission, > and 5% of Accord or Taurus owners report similar problems, you have some > usable information. Maybe a double-blind random survey would have slightly > different percentages, but the information in the CR survey is still > valid. > > It doesn't matter what the survey is, or what the source is, you always > have people that don't like the results trying to attack it if it's not a > double blind random survey. You see the same thing with the CR survey on > cellular carriers, the largest survey of its kind. Again, you have a few > subscribers of the carriers that do extremely poorly year after year > whining that the perception of Verizon of a carrier with superior coverage > is causing the Verizon subscribers to rate it highly, while the AT&T > subscribers somehow are out to bash AT&T. This is despite the fact that > every other survey from non-advertiser based organizations reports the > same results. > > Then you have the people that are confused about quality versus quantity, > claiming that since McDonald's sell the most hamburgers of any restaurant, > that proves that McDonald's has the best hamburgers, and that since GM > sells more vehicles than Honda or Toyota in the U.S., that proves that GM > produces the best vehicles. > Double blind techniques are used to prevent reporting and collection bias when the sample has already been selected, and that doesn't apply here. Randomness is important here, and that is where CR's surveys are most seriously deficient. Nor does it matter who complains about what survey; the real problems remain with CR's methodology. In your example of transmission problems, we can see how that works. If ten percent of Camry owners are interested in responding to the survey, and of those 30% are interested because they had transmission problems while the rest are interested because they loved their car so much or they had some other complaint, the result would be to magnify the transmission problem from as little as 3% in the real world to 30% in the survey results because 30% of respondents (not owners) complained about their transmissions. Conversely, if 90% of Taurus owners felt compelled to respond because there were daggers embedded in the driver's seat (seating comfort = poor) but only 5% of those had transmission problems, the survey results would be as you describe... although the reality would be that the Camry transmission failure rate was as little as half the Taurus rate rather than six times as high. This is an example of ascertainment bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascertainment_bias We can't even say what the actual rate was for Camrys even though we know - as CR does not - only 10% of Camry owners responded, because we don't know what the other 90% experienced. Did they have no complaints at all, or did a lot of them have transmission trouble and were tired of dealing with it? As long as we don't know why the responses were sent and the rate of response for the various models there is no valid data to be had. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection for more. In the first link, the heading "Overcoming selection bias" warns, "In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone..." Anyway, to each his own. When I have occasionally looked at CR's predictions for cars I have owned I have been struck by how far off base they usually were (although they got pretty close to my experience once!) And to give them their due, when a problem is as pervasive as the AC and tranny failures were for the 1993 and 1994 Volvo 850s they picked up on that. If you want to credit them you can. Personally, I regard the CR surveys as not worth my attention. I have access to a dartboard that is as reliable. Mike |
Re: Brand reliability--Perception vs reality
Dumb Outlook express - this was a draft. Check the other post.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands