|
Re: GM is missing the point again
The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the
statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. mike "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... > The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb > > ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and > Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems > found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 > consumers. > > GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't > matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which > is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... > > The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the > difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is > statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 > problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. > He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 > vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less > relevant because quality is reaching parity. > > There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge > point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this > year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda > and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! > > Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been > dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is > close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit > is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them > consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- > mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a > guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial > quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? > There's a great sales pitch... > ========== > Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
Mike Hunter wrote:
> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have at 17 problems, on average. > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the > bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive > the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, > and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. Including the cost of taking those cars, with average 1.25 problems per car, back to the dealer. Jeff > mike > > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
Mike Hunter wrote:
> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have at 17 problems, on average. > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the > bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive > the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, > and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. Including the cost of taking those cars, with average 1.25 problems per car, back to the dealer. Jeff > mike > > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:
> > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in > message news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... > The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on > the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed > meaningless. > > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to > drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, > insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. Valid point. It is - after all - the total time behind the wheel that matters. Oh, and Mike - *PLEASE* stop top posting. It is very annoying. -- k www.perfectreign.com making the impossible happen ahead of schedule |
Re: GM is missing the point again
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:
> > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in > message news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... > The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on > the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed > meaningless. > > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to > drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, > insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. Valid point. It is - after all - the total time behind the wheel that matters. Oh, and Mike - *PLEASE* stop top posting. It is very annoying. -- k www.perfectreign.com making the impossible happen ahead of schedule |
Re: GM is missing the point again
Mike, I agree, that's why you should try a cost to own comparison on
edmonds.com. They compare on a 4 year basis, Maintenance, think repairs before and after 90 days, more like about the time the warranty ends, Resale Value (you know about that one Mike ), and yes original sale price and regular maintenance. Try for example comparing Camry, Accord, Malibu, and any other comparible domestics, and see what you come up with. Most people don't own their only cars 90 days. I had a 92 Saturn SL2 that rated high in JD Powers and it was a terrible car. Three brake jobs before the warranty ran out (obviously my fault per the dealer). Used non-GM brakes after the warranty and never replaced them again up to 73k miles. Alternator died at 37k, dealer said can't help, rarely happens, parts guy said they fail all the time, hmmmm. Rattles, loose trim parts, noisy engine, bad body panels. Real quality car for the first 90 days, after that, well, downhill from there. In the end, trade in value was horrible too. The folks at saturn basically said too bad, so I say too bad when I don't consider them in the future. Can't say that for my 3 Toyotas and my wife's 2 Hondas. "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:mYednWDi9ZU6VPTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@ptd.net... > The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on > the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed > meaningless. > > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to > drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, > insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. > > mike > > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
Mike, I agree, that's why you should try a cost to own comparison on
edmonds.com. They compare on a 4 year basis, Maintenance, think repairs before and after 90 days, more like about the time the warranty ends, Resale Value (you know about that one Mike ), and yes original sale price and regular maintenance. Try for example comparing Camry, Accord, Malibu, and any other comparible domestics, and see what you come up with. Most people don't own their only cars 90 days. I had a 92 Saturn SL2 that rated high in JD Powers and it was a terrible car. Three brake jobs before the warranty ran out (obviously my fault per the dealer). Used non-GM brakes after the warranty and never replaced them again up to 73k miles. Alternator died at 37k, dealer said can't help, rarely happens, parts guy said they fail all the time, hmmmm. Rattles, loose trim parts, noisy engine, bad body panels. Real quality car for the first 90 days, after that, well, downhill from there. In the end, trade in value was horrible too. The folks at saturn basically said too bad, so I say too bad when I don't consider them in the future. Can't say that for my 3 Toyotas and my wife's 2 Hondas. "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:mYednWDi9ZU6VPTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@ptd.net... > The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on > the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed > meaningless. > > What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to > drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, > insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. > > mike > > "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven 300,000 miles? If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, it makes a difference. >What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive >the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. > >mike Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars are best for this. > >"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bork ed.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven 300,000 miles? If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, it makes a difference. >What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive >the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. > >mike Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars are best for this. > >"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bork ed.net... >> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >> >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >> consumers. >> >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >> >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >> >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >> >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >> There's a great sales pitch... >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >> > |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL
mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >> manufactured products. > > That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. > > I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have > at 17 problems, on average. > > > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >> meaningless. > > What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per > 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > Jeff |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL
mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >> manufactured products. > > That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. > > I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have > at 17 problems, on average. > > > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >> meaningless. > > What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per > 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > Jeff |
Re: GM is missing the point again
You are entitle to your own opinion but I know that since I switched from
buying Toyota / Lexus vehicles to domestics I have saved thousand of dollars every time I buy another new car and I have been saving hundreds of dollars annually on the maintenance costs at the dealerships. mike "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message news:466a0fbc$0$19508$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mike, I agree, that's why you should try a cost to own comparison on > edmonds.com. They compare on a 4 year basis, Maintenance, think repairs > before and after 90 days, more like about the time the warranty ends, > Resale Value (you know about that one Mike ), and yes original sale price > and regular maintenance. Try for example comparing Camry, Accord, Malibu, > and any other comparible domestics, and see what you come up with. > > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:mYednWDi9ZU6VPTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@ptd.net... >> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >> manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >> the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >> meaningless. >> >> What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >> drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >> insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >> >> mike >> >> "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >> message news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>> >>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>> consumers. >>> >>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>> >>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>> >>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>> >>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>> There's a great sales pitch... >>> ========== >>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>> >> >> > > |
Re: GM is missing the point again
You are entitle to your own opinion but I know that since I switched from
buying Toyota / Lexus vehicles to domestics I have saved thousand of dollars every time I buy another new car and I have been saving hundreds of dollars annually on the maintenance costs at the dealerships. mike "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message news:466a0fbc$0$19508$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Mike, I agree, that's why you should try a cost to own comparison on > edmonds.com. They compare on a 4 year basis, Maintenance, think repairs > before and after 90 days, more like about the time the warranty ends, > Resale Value (you know about that one Mike ), and yes original sale price > and regular maintenance. Try for example comparing Camry, Accord, Malibu, > and any other comparible domestics, and see what you come up with. > > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:mYednWDi9ZU6VPTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@ptd.net... >> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >> manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >> the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >> meaningless. >> >> What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >> drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >> insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >> >> mike >> >> "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >> message news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net... >>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>> >>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>> consumers. >>> >>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>> >>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>> >>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>> >>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>> There's a great sales pitch... >>> ========== >>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>> >> >> > > |
Re: GM is still number one
Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they all look and run just fine. Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why I no longer buy imports mike "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>the >>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. > > What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all > transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven > 300,000 miles? > > If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in > the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale > value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for > 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, > it makes a difference. > >>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>drive >>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >> >>mike > > Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation > costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars > are best for this. > > > > > > > > > > >> >>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bor ked.net... >>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>> >>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>> consumers. >>> >>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>> >>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>> >>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>> >>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>> There's a great sales pitch... >>> ========== >>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>> >> |
Re: GM is still number one
Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they all look and run just fine. Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why I no longer buy imports mike "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>the >>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. > > What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all > transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven > 300,000 miles? > > If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in > the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale > value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for > 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, > it makes a difference. > >>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>drive >>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >> >>mike > > Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation > costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars > are best for this. > > > > > > > > > > >> >>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bor ked.net... >>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>> >>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>> consumers. >>> >>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>> >>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>> >>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>> >>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>> There's a great sales pitch... >>> ========== >>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>> >> |
Re: GM is still number one
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... > Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were > problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not > keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, > some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper > preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > > I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where > purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they > all look and run just fine. > > Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what > corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to > acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the > reason why I no longer buy imports > > mike For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, it would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going to a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a year thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything or not" kind of thing. Now and then, I read the used car ads for amusement, and continually see 3 or 4 year old Cads which the owner states "85K miles, new transmission" and such ads for other American iron. I still like my American car, built in Georgetown, KY with the badge "Avalon" on it. ...And my Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only the starter, the water pump, timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. And the transmission is still smooth as silk. |
Re: GM is still number one
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... > Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were > problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not > keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, > some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper > preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > > I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where > purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they > all look and run just fine. > > Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what > corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to > acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the > reason why I no longer buy imports > > mike For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, it would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going to a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a year thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything or not" kind of thing. Now and then, I read the used car ads for amusement, and continually see 3 or 4 year old Cads which the owner states "85K miles, new transmission" and such ads for other American iron. I still like my American car, built in Georgetown, KY with the badge "Avalon" on it. ...And my Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only the starter, the water pump, timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. And the transmission is still smooth as silk. |
Re: GM is still number one
Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not keep >my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > >I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they all >look and run just fine. > >Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to acquire, >insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why I >no longer buy imports > >mike > > >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com.. . >> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>the >>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. >> >> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >> 300,000 miles? >> >> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >> it makes a difference. >> >>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>drive >>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>> >>>mike >> >> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >> are best for this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bo rked.net... >>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>> >>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>> consumers. >>>> >>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>> >>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>> >>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>> >>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>> ========== >>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>> >>> > |
Re: GM is still number one
Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not keep >my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > >I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they all >look and run just fine. > >Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to acquire, >insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why I >no longer buy imports > >mike > > >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com.. . >> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>the >>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. >> >> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >> 300,000 miles? >> >> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >> it makes a difference. >> >>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>drive >>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, >>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>> >>>mike >> >> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >> are best for this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message >>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bo rked.net... >>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>> >>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>> consumers. >>>> >>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>> >>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. >>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>> >>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>> >>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial >>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? >>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>> ========== >>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>> >>> > |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it. > >mike > >"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>> manufactured products. >> >> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. >> >> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have >> at 17 problems, on average. >> >> > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >>> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>> meaningless. >> >> What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per >> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > >> Jeff > |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it. > >mike > >"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>> manufactured products. >> >> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles. >> >> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have >> at 17 problems, on average. >> >> > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >>> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>> meaningless. >> >> What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per >> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. > >> Jeff > |
Re: GM is still number one
Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K
on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the maintenance ;) mike "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:136m3spb5lhvm0a@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... >> Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >> problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >> keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, >> some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the >> proper preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >> >> I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >> purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >> all look and run just fine. >> >> Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >> corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >> acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the >> reason why I no longer buy imports >> >> mike > > For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, > it would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My > three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going > to a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a > year thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything > or not" kind of thing. (M)y Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only the starter, the water pump, > timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. > |
Re: GM is still number one
Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K
on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the maintenance ;) mike "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:136m3spb5lhvm0a@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... >> Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >> problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >> keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, >> some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the >> proper preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >> >> I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >> purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >> all look and run just fine. >> >> Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >> corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >> acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the >> reason why I no longer buy imports >> >> mike > > For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, > it would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My > three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going > to a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a > year thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything > or not" kind of thing. (M)y Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only the starter, the water pump, > timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. > |
Re: GM is still number one
It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com... > > > Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? > > > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >>keep >>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >> >>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >>all >>look and run just fine. >> >>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >>acquire, >>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why >>I >>no longer buy imports >> >>mike >> >> >>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com. .. >>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>>the >>>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>>meaningless. >>> >>> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >>> 300,000 miles? >>> >>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >>> it makes a difference. >>> >>>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>>drive >>>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >>>>insurance, >>>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>>> >>>>mike >>> >>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >>> are best for this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.b orked.net... >>>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>>> >>>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>>> consumers. >>>>> >>>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>>> >>>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 >>>>> cars. >>>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>>> >>>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>>> >>>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the >>>>> initial >>>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically >>>>> minuscule? >>>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>>> ========== >>>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>>> >>>> >> |
Re: GM is still number one
It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com... > > > Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? > > > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >>keep >>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >> >>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >>all >>look and run just fine. >> >>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >>acquire, >>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why >>I >>no longer buy imports >> >>mike >> >> >>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com. .. >>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>>the >>>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>>meaningless. >>> >>> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >>> 300,000 miles? >>> >>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >>> it makes a difference. >>> >>>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>>drive >>>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >>>>insurance, >>>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>>> >>>>mike >>> >>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >>> are best for this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.b orked.net... >>>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>>> >>>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>>> consumers. >>>>> >>>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>>> >>>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 >>>>> cars. >>>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>>> >>>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>>> >>>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the >>>>> initial >>>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically >>>>> minuscule? >>>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>>> ========== >>>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>>> >>>> >> |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
I never said 125 problems per 100 vehicles was 2%. Who ever did, does not
understand how to figure statistical averages. LOL "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:ptom631076iu6vmjp4k7hstul5c39i0irl@4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL > > It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it. > >> >>mike >> >>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for >>>> ALL >>>> manufactured products. >>> >>> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. >>> >>> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles >>> have >>> at 17 problems, on average. >>> >>> > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >>>> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>> meaningless. >>> >>> What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per >>> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. >> >>> Jeff >> |
Re: GM is still number one in the US, again
I never said 125 problems per 100 vehicles was 2%. Who ever did, does not
understand how to figure statistical averages. LOL "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:ptom631076iu6vmjp4k7hstul5c39i0irl@4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL > > It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it. > >> >>mike >> >>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for >>>> ALL >>>> manufactured products. >>> >>> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 >>> vehicles. >>> >>> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles >>> have >>> at 17 problems, on average. >>> >>> > Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the >>>> bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>> meaningless. >>> >>> What's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per >>> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me. >> >>> Jeff >> |
Re: GM is still number one
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. > > >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com.. . >> >> >> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >> >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >>>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >>>keep >>>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >>>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >>>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >>> >>>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >>>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >>>all >>>look and run just fine. >>> >>>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >>>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >>>acquire, >>>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why >>>I >>>no longer buy imports >>> >>>mike >>> >>> >>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com ... >>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>>>the >>>>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>>>meaningless. >>>> >>>> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >>>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >>>> 300,000 miles? >>>> >>>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >>>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >>>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >>>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >>>> it makes a difference. >>>> >>>>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>>>drive >>>>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >>>>>insurance, >>>>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>>>> >>>>>mike >>>> >>>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >>>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >>>> are best for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >>>>>message >>>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo. borked.net... >>>>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>>>> >>>>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>>>> consumers. >>>>>> >>>>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 >>>>>> cars. >>>>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>>>> >>>>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the >>>>>> initial >>>>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically >>>>>> minuscule? >>>>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>>>> ========== >>>>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > |
Re: GM is still number one
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. > > >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com.. . >> >> >> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >> >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were >>>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not >>>keep >>>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of >>>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper >>>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. >>> >>>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where >>>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they >>>all >>>look and run just fine. >>> >>>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what >>>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to >>>acquire, >>>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why >>>I >>>no longer buy imports >>> >>>mike >>> >>> >>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com ... >>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the >>>>>statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL >>>>>manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on >>>>>the >>>>>bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed >>>>>meaningless. >>>> >>>> What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all >>>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven >>>> 300,000 miles? >>>> >>>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in >>>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale >>>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for >>>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, >>>> it makes a difference. >>>> >>>>>What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to >>>>>drive >>>>>the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, >>>>>insurance, >>>>>and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. >>>>> >>>>>mike >>>> >>>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation >>>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars >>>> are best for this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in >>>>>message >>>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo. borked.net... >>>>>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb >>>>>> >>>>>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and >>>>>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems >>>>>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 >>>>>> consumers. >>>>>> >>>>>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't >>>>>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which >>>>>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the >>>>>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is >>>>>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 >>>>>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 >>>>>> cars. >>>>>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 >>>>>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less >>>>>> relevant because quality is reaching parity. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge >>>>>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this >>>>>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda >>>>>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! >>>>>> >>>>>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been >>>>>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is >>>>>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit >>>>>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them >>>>>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- >>>>>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a >>>>>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the >>>>>> initial >>>>>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically >>>>>> minuscule? >>>>>> There's a great sales pitch... >>>>>> ========== >>>>>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > |
Re: GM is still number one
It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you
can't see it LOL mike "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. >>LOL > > IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a > number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. > > >>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com. .. >>> >>> >>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >>> \ |
Re: GM is still number one
It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you
can't see it LOL mike "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > >>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. >>LOL > > IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a > number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. > > >>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com. .. >>> >>> >>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >>> \ |
Re: GM is still number one
On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K > on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all > three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, > todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the > maintenance ;) > > mike > Sure Mike. Domestics are great. That's why their market share keeps declining. I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying. Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes you the only one. My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel pump, too. None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty? |
Re: GM is still number one
On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K > on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all > three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, > todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the > maintenance ;) > > mike > Sure Mike. Domestics are great. That's why their market share keeps declining. I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying. Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes you the only one. My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel pump, too. None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty? |
Re: GM is still number one
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:17:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you >can't see it LOL > >mike IOW, it is just a number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com.. . >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. >>>LOL >> >> IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a >> number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. >> >> >>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >>>> >\ > |
Re: GM is still number one
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:17:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you >can't see it LOL > >mike IOW, it is just a number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com.. . >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. >>>LOL >> >> IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a >> number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that. >> >> >>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean? >>>> >\ > |
Re: GM is still number one
I think you're lying. ;)
mike "ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181524584.705775.93480@p77g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com... > On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote: >> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly >> 300K >> on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all >> three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, >> todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the >> maintenance ;) >> >> mike >> > > Sure Mike. > Domestics are great. > That's why their market share keeps declining. > > I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying. > Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes > you the only one. > My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while > still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel > pump, too. > > None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as > costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to > go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty? > |
Re: GM is still number one
I think you're lying. ;)
mike "ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181524584.705775.93480@p77g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com... > On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote: >> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly >> 300K >> on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all >> three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said, >> todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the >> maintenance ;) >> >> mike >> > > Sure Mike. > Domestics are great. > That's why their market share keeps declining. > > I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying. > Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes > you the only one. > My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while > still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel > pump, too. > > None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as > costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to > go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty? > |
Re: GM is still number one
On Jun 9, 4:37 pm, "mack" <macke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message > > news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... > > > > > > > Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were > > problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not > > keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, > > some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper > > preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > > > I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where > > purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they > > all look and run just fine. > > > Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what > > corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to > > acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the > > reason why I no longer buy imports > > > mike > > For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, it > would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My > three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going to > a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a year > thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything or not" > kind of thing. > Now and then, I read the used car ads for amusement, and continually see 3 > or 4 year old Cads which the owner states "85K miles, new transmission" and > such ads for other American iron. > I still like my American car, built in Georgetown, KY with the badge > "Avalon" on it. ...And my Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only > the starter, the water pump, timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. > And the transmission is still smooth as silk.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'm really not trying to start a fight here, or even try to be smart. I've owned 14 GM products over the past 30 years and have been satisfied with all of them;of course, some more than others. Some vehicles I have kept for many many years, others, I sold or traded after a couple of years. One thing has been constant in ALL of the GM cars I have owned is this: I have NEVER owned a GM car that I have had to get rid of because it was mechanically unsound or unreliable. And if I had to replace a starter, water pump,AND timing belt after only 138000 miles, I would probably not continuing to own GM products! |
Re: GM is still number one
On Jun 9, 4:37 pm, "mack" <macke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message > > news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net... > > > > > > > Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were > > problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not > > keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, > > some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper > > preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more. > > > I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where > > purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they > > all look and run just fine. > > > Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what > > corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to > > acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the > > reason why I no longer buy imports > > > mike > > For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, it > would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My > three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going to > a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a year > thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything or not" > kind of thing. > Now and then, I read the used car ads for amusement, and continually see 3 > or 4 year old Cads which the owner states "85K miles, new transmission" and > such ads for other American iron. > I still like my American car, built in Georgetown, KY with the badge > "Avalon" on it. ...And my Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only > the starter, the water pump, timing belt and brake pads have been replaced. > And the transmission is still smooth as silk.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I'm really not trying to start a fight here, or even try to be smart. I've owned 14 GM products over the past 30 years and have been satisfied with all of them;of course, some more than others. Some vehicles I have kept for many many years, others, I sold or traded after a couple of years. One thing has been constant in ALL of the GM cars I have owned is this: I have NEVER owned a GM car that I have had to get rid of because it was mechanically unsound or unreliable. And if I had to replace a starter, water pump,AND timing belt after only 138000 miles, I would probably not continuing to own GM products! |
Re: GM is missing the point again
On Jun 9, 12:41 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter" > > <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote: > >The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the > >statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL > >manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on the > >bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed meaningless. > > What is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all > transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven > 300,000 miles? > > If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in > the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale > value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for > 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage, > it makes a difference. > > >What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to drive > >the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service, insurance, > >and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill. > > >mike > > Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation > costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars > are best for this. > > > > > > >"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message > >news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.bork ed.net... > >> The Autobeathttp://snipr.com/1n8lb > > >> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and > >> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems > >> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000 > >> consumers. > > >> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't > >> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which > >> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles... > > >> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the > >> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is > >> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112 > >> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars. > >> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100 > >> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less > >> relevant because quality is reaching parity. > > >> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge > >> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this > >> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda > >> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year! > > >> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been > >> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is > >> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit > >> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them > >> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of- > >> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a > >> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial > >> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule? > >> There's a great sales pitch... > >> ========== > >> Rising Sun:http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If God have intended for JD Powers or Consumer Reports to think for you, he wouldn't have given you a brain. All cars built today are pretty much equal, and have been for a long time. Continue to buy your Japanese products, I'll buy my American, which for some reason, does not break down nor get recalled at nearly the rate as these "perfect" Toyotas do. (BTW, is it my opinion, or does EVERY NEW GENERATION Camary look more ugly than the one before it?) |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands