1sykcord

at the end of the day I drive a Honda. i don't own the Mazda anymore. Or ford as you would call it. And even if it was a Ford, it would have only lasted that long because of Mazda. look at Jaguar now, using modified ford motors in there cars. you tell me how well there built and how well they sell Mr Nastyzed??? and don't guess, pull some facts off the internet. give an educated answer, not a stupid one.

Quoted from Consumer Guide.


Back in 1999, Jaguar set out to boost its yearly worldwide sales beyond 200,000. The entry-level X-Type was key to that goal. But the X-Type was seen in many quarters as just a gussied up European Ford, and it has never sold as expected. As a result, Jaguar managed only 120,000 worldwide sales in 2004, about where it was when the X-Type launched in '01. Worse, the X-Type effectively made Jaguar's operations less efficient. The added overhead has combined with continuing weak sales and a falling dollar to create huge losses--a hefty $1.1 billion in 2003 alone.

With all this, some sources feel the X-Type will be dropped after 2007 and not redesigned as scheduled. Apparently, some Jaguar insiders are against another entry-level sedan, instead favoring an iconic, image-boosting 2-seat coupe or convertible. The only problem is money. Though parent Ford Motor Company has promised to pump in more cash to turn Jaguar around, it's unclear whether funds would exist for a new fourth model line. Tune in tomorrow--or at least keep checking with us--for the next chapter of Britain's most famous automotive soap opera. Meanwhile, we don't see the X-Type changing much, if at all.

There's ford for you, another innovative automaker. Hmmm lets replace the Windstar with the all new Freestar. Drive by Ford oakville and you can still see the outline of Windstar behind "Home of the Freestar"

lowbalt

yeah

Nastyzed

Are you on crack????? ford was the best thing that ever happend to jaguar MOST british cars were prone to malfunction.. A jag with a SBC is the only way to go.

civtegra90

hey lowbalt, are you up for doing this the legal way? a bunch of us are headin up to st thomas this friday night. maybe see you there?

GSR_T

iTrader: (1)

nice kill

lowbalt

doing it the legal way would be cool. But I have school monday-friday. (and work right during the evening). I'm available sometimes through the weekends. Thanks for the offer... Btw, where is st.thomas???

1 quick_hatch

hey lowbalt the reason I asked is because I am a member also my board name is red-ss

civtegra90

st thomas dragway i believe is bout 20 mins south of London in Sparta. thats too bad u cant make it. will post a timeslip though providing it doesnt rain.

civtegra90

nevermind, its one hell of a drive, might hit up cayuga saturday morn instead.

lowbalt

you have a ss/sc?

cL0wn_p3n0r

Too many magazine racers of this board.

Stock Cobalt SS dyno, about as underrated as the Neon SRT-4



Stock they pull low 14's.

cL0wn_p3n0r

Only a fool hold's the opinion of CR in any high regard; ever heard of their now infamous Suzuki Samari debacle? One has to love what the judge had to say about their journalistic objectivity in that case. They should stick to reviewing toasters and dishwasher, they simply do not understand cars: for example just in a recent review they complained that the pedals in the Lotus Elise were too close together ****ing morons, ever heard of heel an toeing?!?!? None the less they are regarded as nothing but a joke by the automotive industry and press because of the consistent factual errors and their just laughable statistically flawed reliability report. Every year multiple journalists call them out on it to disclose their source data and they never do because they’re full of .


http://www.automobear.com/index_home.html

GM Executive Lori Queen is reported to have fired back this week at Consumer Reports, through Automotive News, for the perceived injustice of its top-ten auto list this year. While we'll admit both that several vehicles on that list have better competitors, and that by corollary an all-Japanese list seems peripherally disingenuous, the real question is whether obvious inadequacies in Consumer Reports' methodology have any chance of being rectified.

It is these we propose to discuss, briefly, this morning.

We could conjecture whether an all-Japanese list, in today's market, itself implies flawed methodology.

We might dredge up history and ask whether an offroad, special-purpose vehicle such as Suzuki's Samurai deserved to be slalomed repeatedly until it rolled over for Consumer Reports' cover page in 1988.

By corollary, one might ask whether a magazine which happily tests microwaves and lawnmowers has the ability to fully understand an automobile, and the differing ownership experience with respect to an appliance. After all, in testing the splendid Lotus Elise last year, did Consumer Reports not write that the pedals were "too close together," thus summarily demonstrating that the staff was not familiar with the heel and toe technique for which the Lotus was designed?

Yet let us leave implications behind and look at harder facts that illustrate a serious problem with Consumer Reports' predicted-reliability methodology, a process that produces the publication's most visible results.

Consumer Reports recently reflected, in a note to its subscribers, that its methodology had come under fire, notably after this October 30th, 2005 interview (RealPlayer required) between Autoline Detroit's John McElroy and the magazine's Senior Director of Auto Testing David Champion.

The admission was overdue.

Put simply, a crash course in statistics would rule out taking Consumer Reports' reliability scores - a famously simple system of black and red dots - with any seriousness. The reasons are twofold.

How can a self-selective survey of subscribers possibly have external validity? Only Consumer Reports subscribers may fill out the survey, and they are selected not at random but, rather, participate on a volunteer basis. It is unclear what verification of their responses is performed but, this and other issues notwithstanding, the self-selective nature of this survey is a massive barrier to its trustworthiness and, ultimately, its relevance. By Champion's own comments to McElroy - "our job... is to serve our subscribers... the people that we are helping (are) the same people that are filling-in the survey" - Consumer Reports' findings require a serious disclaimer! (Autoline Detroit, October 30th, 2005)


How can one possibly compare the reliability factors of two vehicles to which (potentially) wildly different numbers of responses have been submitted? Consumer Reports has never disclosed these numbers, and will not upon request. To attempt to compare Consumer Reports' 'dots' between a Chevrolet Malibu and a Toyota Camry, without clear indication of the number of responses, flies in the face of margin-of-error, which holds that the accuracy of an estimate varies with the numbers of responses used in determining it.


At this point, with Consumer Reports remaining largely mute on questions of how reflective its subscriber base is of the general population, and on margin-of-error issues, one can merely conjecture what the fallout might be.

For instance: image that perhaps the bulk of Consumer Reports' subscribers came of driving age thirty years ago and were faced with a Detroit scrambling to downsize; a Detroit battling strikes, and a Detroit forced to spend money on catalytic converters rather than on intelligent solutions. Perhaps these weary consumers picked cars that had been geographically dictated to be perfectly gas-crisis sized, sans painful growing pains - Japanese cars - and never looked back. A self-selective survey, thirty years later, could never be described as placing Detroit on equal footing. Certainly, this appears to be Lori Queen's fear; in her comments, she charges that Consumer Reports goes "to great extremes to paint a picture for their paid subscription readers, who primarily buy Japanese cars."

If such a scenario is inaccurate, would it not be in Consumer Reports' interests to correct the impression immediately? Or does a subscriber-serving survey simply continue to repeat itself, circling round and round, interrupted only when someone outside the circle and unaware of the questionable external validity within attempts to use it with obviously skewed consequences?

This is, of course, simply a possible scenario at this point; a possible explanation for the single-minded top ten list that the magazine has published. It is also important to mention that Consumer Reports recently moved to recommend, among GM vehicles, the Cadillac STS; Chevrolet Malibu MAXX; Pontiac G6, and the Buick LaCrosse (a car J.D. Power has praised repeatedly).

However, given the clear problems noted here, Consumer Reports must be careful of perpetuating the perception gap. Even when done unintentionally, through inaccuracy and through the failure to provide critical information to ensure that a survey's results are properly interpreted, disingenuousness remains this end result. Moreover, perpetuating the perception gap does not serve the consumer - it does not "maintain and enhance the quality of life for consumers" (as Consumers Union claims is its mission) but, rather, it maintains the status quo, perhaps merely because not enough readers have caught on to these basic statistical faux-pas.

The perception gap has been discussed in these pages several times, and we tend to lend credence to its existence. We might consider that it has begun to turn if the mainstream media were ever to do a story on the failings of Consumer Reports.

The preliminary evidence has now been provided.

cL0wn_p3n0r

Oh and a forgot to mention.

1sykcord:

Your posts thus far in this thread can be described as nothin but uninformed and retarded

1 quick_hatch

I sure do

civtegra90

well, according to the traps at Cayuga, i ran a 15.2 @ 88.42mph. so its easy to see how a stock (14.8 sec) cobalt ss can be beaten because of his driving. its not hard to lose 0.4 sec off your time through bad driving. my worst run was 15.5.