Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> This asinine chart, together with basic knowledge of what transmissions
> were used in Chrysler minivans in which model years, does a splendid
> job of telling us all we need to know about the veracity of Condemner
> Retards' "research".
>
> > Then where are we supposed to get our information
>
> Your argument here amounts to "OK, CR might be full of ****, but what
> choice do we have but to believe them?".

That's a ridiculous summation, and what does the version of the
transmission in each model year when CR is reporting the reliabily
model year by model year? Also if CR's reliability surveys are so
useless, why do they strangely correlate with the results of two other
surveys?

> Yes, it's a shame CR isn't what it once was -- go to the public
> library and take a look at what they were in the '60s -- but using CR
> because you can't be bothered to use your own five senses plus your mind
> is...well, it's lazy.

I wish they'd go back to testing more budget products and providing
more information and fewer dumbed-down Money magazine-style articles,
but they haven't changed their auto reliability surveys, except how
they're tabulated (formerly only like year cars compared, now all cars
compared together).

But tell me: How is the average consumer supposed to judge the
reliability of new cars using just his or her brain and five senses?
Talking to people doesn't work well because of product loyalty (even
lemons have their fans) or exceptional experiences, and initial quality
and long term reliability are only loosely related (as so many British
luxury cars have shown).

> > from friends and mechanics who still believe that Chevys and Fords are
> > great

> If you have a mechanic who believes that Chevs and Fords are "great", it's
> a fairly good wager you'd do well to find another mechanic.

I'm sure that there are many good mechanics who just don't know other
brands. OTOH I haven't let a mechanic touch any car of mine in years.