Built_Well <Built_Well_Toyota@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Damn, everytime I think of expanding my horizons beyond
>Toyota, cold, hard survey data and results bring me back,
>keeping me loyal to Toyota.

Not that Toyota products are bad in any way, but this survey is pretty
much useless because it considers all reliability issues to be the same.
A car with a lot of warranty tickets on broken glove box hinges and a
car with a lot of warranty tickets on blown engines are considered the
same way.

Some of the surveys that have done breakdowns on individual issues bring
some really interesting stuff up. For example, there are a whole lot of
repair tickets opened up on BMW's iDrive system, which are related to the
system having horrible user interface design rather than actually being
unreliable. People can't get it work right, not because it's actually broken
but because it's difficult to use. These sorts of things should not be
considered if you are actually trying to measure reliability, although they
do belong in an overall survey of customer satisfaction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Built_Well <Built_Well_Toyota@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Damn, everytime I think of expanding my horizons beyond
>> Toyota, cold, hard survey data and results bring me back,
>> keeping me loyal to Toyota.
>
> Not that Toyota products are bad in any way, but this survey is pretty
> much useless because it considers all reliability issues to be the same.


Exactly. And if Toyota is so great, how come we STILL see more 87 Buicks
on the road than 87 Toyotas? They didn't sell more that many more Buicks
at that time, they just lasted longer in the end, even if they were less
"reliable" (according to CR) up front.

Same in reverse for Mercedes. Consumer Retards considers a broken radio
to be the same level of "unreliability" as a hole in the side of the
cylinder block where a connecting rod departed.... USELESS info. EVERY
single person I know who owns a Mercedes would gladly own another.
They're not the heaps CR makes them out to be.

"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>
> Same in reverse for Mercedes. Consumer Retards considers a broken radio to
> be the same level of "unreliability" as a hole in the side of the cylinder
> block where a connecting rod departed.... USELESS info. EVERY single
> person I know who owns a Mercedes would gladly own another. They're not
> the heaps CR makes them out to be.
>
>
>

Not so fast, Steve. I owned one and have no desire to ever own one again.
Extremely expensive to keep up and repair and part costs are just
outrageous, and no more reliable than a Chevy. I even bought a shop manual
so I could tell the dealer how to fix some of the problems I had with it.

I knew another owner. He sold his while it was up on the lift at the dealer
for the umpteenth time and bought a Plymouth instead.

Oh, and a broken radio would probably cost about the same as buying a
Pontiac to replace out of warranty.

Some of you folks keep repeating the same thing that a
sticking glove box is made out to be the same as an
engine cooling problem. However, Consumer Reports does
break down and itemize the problems into 16 categories,
which are:

Engine problem, major
Engine problem, minor
Engine Cooling
Transmission
Drive system
Fuel system
Electrical
Climate system
Suspension
Brakes
Exhaust
Paint/Trim
Body integrity
Body hardware
Power equipment
Audio system

The J.D. Powers surveys also rank Toyota highly

>
> The J.D. Powers surveys also rank Toyota highly

Not to start another rant, but J.D. Powers will rank highly whoever pays
them. That's why you see the auto company ads stating "Best vehicle of the
year according to JDP" and 4 different companies have 4 different models
each that won. Kinda hard to believe that every vehicle out there is the
"Best of the year." But that's just my opinion, I may be wrong. . .

SC Tom

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> Same in reverse for Mercedes. Consumer Retards considers a broken radio to
>> be the same level of "unreliability" as a hole in the side of the cylinder
>> block where a connecting rod departed.... USELESS info. EVERY single
>> person I know who owns a Mercedes would gladly own another. They're not
>> the heaps CR makes them out to be.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not so fast, Steve. I owned one and have no desire to ever own one again.

Do I know you? ;-)


> Extremely expensive to keep up and repair and part costs are just
> outrageous, and no more reliable than a Chevy. I even bought a shop manual
> so I could tell the dealer how to fix some of the problems I had with it.

No argument that they're no more reliable than a Chevy and that parts
costs are stupid-high. But no LESS reliable either- everything from Kia
to Toyota to Ford to Mercedes is really pretty comparable these days.
But the people I know who own them consider the way they drive, the
comfort, the quiet, etc. to be worth the cost of parts, but they
typically have NOT had excessive problems. I'm not even arguing that its
not placebo effect and status symbol effect that makest them like the
cars (I sure as hell would RATHER have a Plymouth than a Mercedes, even
if someone said "pick one of these for free) but my point is that the
real world doesn't align with the CR world... again.


> Oh, and a broken radio would probably cost about the same as buying a
> Pontiac to replace out of warranty.

That's what Circuit City is for....

"SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
news:thZhk.7120$CY7.3888@newsfe06.iad...
>
>>
>> The J.D. Powers surveys also rank Toyota highly
>
> Not to start another rant, but J.D. Powers will rank highly whoever pays
> them. That's why you see the auto company ads stating "Best vehicle of the
> year according to JDP" and 4 different companies have 4 different models
> each that won. Kinda hard to believe that every vehicle out there is the
> "Best of the year." But that's just my opinion, I may be wrong. . .

JD Powers collects data to sell to auto companies. They publish part of the
data in an effort to create a brand, but they sell a lot more information
than they give away.

I believe the JD Powers data (as far as it goes) is more reliable than the
CR data. I have filled out surveys for both. The CR data collection scheme
is rudimentary, non-random, and the data reporting scheme is designed to
emphasize very small differences. People who defend CRs data like to
emphasize the fact that CR doesn't take money from advertisers. While true,
it is irrelevant. CR has to please the subscribers and keep them interested
in buying the magazine. Suppose they started saying that all cars were
pretty much the same - would that make for a "must have magazine?" CR slants
their reports to suit their own needs (the need to attract and keep
subscribers and to promote their particular somewhat nanny state agenda). I
enjoy reading CR, but I am never going to confuse their reporting with
absolute truth.

Ed

On 23 Jul 2008 11:45:52 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Built_Well <Built_Well_Toyota@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Damn, everytime I think of expanding my horizons beyond
>>Toyota, cold, hard survey data and results bring me back,
>>keeping me loyal to Toyota.
>
>Not that Toyota products are bad in any way, but this survey is pretty
>much useless because it considers all reliability issues to be the same.
>A car with a lot of warranty tickets on broken glove box hinges and a
>car with a lot of warranty tickets on blown engines are considered the
>same way.
>
>Some of the surveys that have done breakdowns on individual issues bring
>some really interesting stuff up. For example, there are a whole lot of
>repair tickets opened up on BMW's iDrive system, which are related to the
>system having horrible user interface design rather than actually being
>unreliable. People can't get it work right, not because it's actually broken
>but because it's difficult to use. These sorts of things should not be
>considered if you are actually trying to measure reliability, although they
>do belong in an overall survey of customer satisfaction.
>--scott


The other problems with most of these surveys is that they express
"problems per hundred". That makes trivial differences seem like
significant differences. How does 150 problems versus 200 problems
per year sound?? Pretty bad. But how does 1.5 problem versus 2
problems per year sound? Trivial doesn't it. Yet that's all the
difference there is between the upper half or so of these cars. Should
you make your buying decision on whether you'll have 1.5 instead of 2
problems a year fixed under warranty???????

"Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message
news:k13o84lsi8s0k42dck1qo9scpqka96nk9m@4ax.com...

> The other problems with most of these surveys is that they express
> "problems per hundred". That makes trivial differences seem like
> significant differences. How does 150 problems versus 200 problems
> per year sound?? Pretty bad. But how does 1.5 problem versus 2
> problems per year sound? Trivial doesn't it. Yet that's all the
> difference there is between the upper half or so of these cars. Should
> you make your buying decision on whether you'll have 1.5 instead of 2
> problems a year fixed under warranty???????

It is even worse than that. Suppose you had two minor problems, say shift
indicator adjustment and low fluid level for one brand versus the
transmission completely failing for another. Or suppose 9 Toyotas had zero
problems but the one you bought had 15? Ironically the data collected by
both JD Powers and CR is probably a lot more useful to the manufacturers
than to individuals.

Ed