JS wrote:

> Consumer Reports, the people that put the Toyota Corolla and the Geo
> Prism on opposite ends of the reliability scale (EXACT SAME VEHICLE) in
> the early 90s.
>
CR doesn't rate the reliability, they report the statistics based on
what the readers report. If the Toyota scored higher, then it was
because the Toyota owners reported fewer problems than average in the
survey.
>
> Where exactly does CR get its statistics from? "Thin air" seems a
> possible answer.
>
Statistics come from surveys sent out to CR subscribers. CR just
compiles the data and reports what the surveys say.

 

JPH wrote:

> JS wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports, the people that put the Toyota Corolla and the Geo
>> Prism on opposite ends of the reliability scale (EXACT SAME VEHICLE)
>> in the early 90s.
>>
> CR doesn't rate the reliability, they report the statistics based on
> what the readers report. If the Toyota scored higher, then it was
> because the Toyota owners reported fewer problems than average in the
> survey.

Precisly. It doesn't mean that the Toyota car had fewer problems, it
only means that owners of Toyota cars reported fewer problems in their
surveys. As long as you keep in mind that their data isn't data on car
reliability, but simply a summary of the biases of their readers, then
you are fine.

The only real way to get good reliability data would be to have the
repair records of each car. Owner's are notoriously unreliable in their
assessments of car reliability and things that I would consider an
issue, may not even register to you. Just look at the comments in this
group about the Sonata tank sloshing for example. This is a design
issue so ALL Sonatas have sloshing tanks, yet people here seem to fall
into one of three camps:

1. Those who don't notice (maybe can't hear it or play loud music)
2. Those who notice, but don't consider it a problem.
3. Those who notice and consider it an annoyance.

Yet, all are describing the same thing.


Matt

 

JPH wrote:

> JS wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports, the people that put the Toyota Corolla and the Geo
>> Prism on opposite ends of the reliability scale (EXACT SAME VEHICLE)
>> in the early 90s.
>>
> CR doesn't rate the reliability, they report the statistics based on
> what the readers report. If the Toyota scored higher, then it was
> because the Toyota owners reported fewer problems than average in the
> survey.

Precisly. It doesn't mean that the Toyota car had fewer problems, it
only means that owners of Toyota cars reported fewer problems in their
surveys. As long as you keep in mind that their data isn't data on car
reliability, but simply a summary of the biases of their readers, then
you are fine.

The only real way to get good reliability data would be to have the
repair records of each car. Owner's are notoriously unreliable in their
assessments of car reliability and things that I would consider an
issue, may not even register to you. Just look at the comments in this
group about the Sonata tank sloshing for example. This is a design
issue so ALL Sonatas have sloshing tanks, yet people here seem to fall
into one of three camps:

1. Those who don't notice (maybe can't hear it or play loud music)
2. Those who notice, but don't consider it a problem.
3. Those who notice and consider it an annoyance.

Yet, all are describing the same thing.


Matt

 

JPH wrote:

> JS wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports, the people that put the Toyota Corolla and the Geo
>> Prism on opposite ends of the reliability scale (EXACT SAME VEHICLE)
>> in the early 90s.
>>
> CR doesn't rate the reliability, they report the statistics based on
> what the readers report. If the Toyota scored higher, then it was
> because the Toyota owners reported fewer problems than average in the
> survey.

Precisly. It doesn't mean that the Toyota car had fewer problems, it
only means that owners of Toyota cars reported fewer problems in their
surveys. As long as you keep in mind that their data isn't data on car
reliability, but simply a summary of the biases of their readers, then
you are fine.

The only real way to get good reliability data would be to have the
repair records of each car. Owner's are notoriously unreliable in their
assessments of car reliability and things that I would consider an
issue, may not even register to you. Just look at the comments in this
group about the Sonata tank sloshing for example. This is a design
issue so ALL Sonatas have sloshing tanks, yet people here seem to fall
into one of three camps:

1. Those who don't notice (maybe can't hear it or play loud music)
2. Those who notice, but don't consider it a problem.
3. Those who notice and consider it an annoyance.

Yet, all are describing the same thing.


Matt

 

I bought a 2005 Tucson V6 4WD with 3300 miles on it and have since added
about 4000 miles. For me, it is the perfect size (length, width and
interior), and all the features are really worthwhile. The one negative,
which is extremely important, is the poor gas mileage, which has been
commented on in this forum by others. My car is averaging only about 12
mpg, and a little better (maybe 14) on long freeway runs. For the total
number of miles, 12-13 mpg has been the average, and it is disheartening.

Judy

"Peter" <notspam-sec4251@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:at3gc25sfujbhdba714amjekq592ig92le@4ax.com...
> Is the Tucson all that much better than the Santa Fe ?
>
> I have been offfered, by a Hyundai dealer, a substantial discount from
> the sticker price of a 2005 (not 2007) Santa Fe. It looks nice and
> works for me.
>
> The Tucson is what seems to be getting all the press and the J. D.
> Power approval ratings. Is there that much difference ?
>
> Obviously the former year left over 2005 would logically be and is
> being discounted. But is there something that much better about the
> Tucson ? Or is it that the Tucson has just about everything that the
> Santa Fe has, but at a lower price, and therefore is a better deal, is
> more popular and would bring greater customer satisfaction in value
> for the money, and thus a good Power survey response ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> PS would any of you see (again) all that much improvement between a
> 2005 Santa Fe and or Tucson and a 2007 ?
>

 

I bought a 2005 Tucson V6 4WD with 3300 miles on it and have since added
about 4000 miles. For me, it is the perfect size (length, width and
interior), and all the features are really worthwhile. The one negative,
which is extremely important, is the poor gas mileage, which has been
commented on in this forum by others. My car is averaging only about 12
mpg, and a little better (maybe 14) on long freeway runs. For the total
number of miles, 12-13 mpg has been the average, and it is disheartening.

Judy

"Peter" <notspam-sec4251@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:at3gc25sfujbhdba714amjekq592ig92le@4ax.com...
> Is the Tucson all that much better than the Santa Fe ?
>
> I have been offfered, by a Hyundai dealer, a substantial discount from
> the sticker price of a 2005 (not 2007) Santa Fe. It looks nice and
> works for me.
>
> The Tucson is what seems to be getting all the press and the J. D.
> Power approval ratings. Is there that much difference ?
>
> Obviously the former year left over 2005 would logically be and is
> being discounted. But is there something that much better about the
> Tucson ? Or is it that the Tucson has just about everything that the
> Santa Fe has, but at a lower price, and therefore is a better deal, is
> more popular and would bring greater customer satisfaction in value
> for the money, and thus a good Power survey response ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> PS would any of you see (again) all that much improvement between a
> 2005 Santa Fe and or Tucson and a 2007 ?
>