|
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 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands