"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > Of course they had breakdown problems. However what you originally
> > posted was a comparative survey that picked one item - the transmission.
>
> Because the OP mentioned the transmission.
>
> > When people own cars their vehicle satisfaction is driven by
expectations
> > and what the actual maintainence history.
>
> So why do some brands of a given type (minivan, pickup, sports car,
> etc.) have much worse reliability rates than others of the same type?
> I doubt it's because Chevy owners are slobs and Toyota owners aren't.
>

Consider the use the vehicle is put to. A sports car is going to have worse
reliability simply because people that buy sports cars don't drive them
like little old ladies that only drive it to and from church on Sunday.

> > With your survey, focusing on a transmission, the truck-jacked-
> > up-into-god's-ass would rate very high, the pizza car would
> > rate very low. Even though both myself and the truck-jacked-
> > up-into-gods-ass drivers would have an equally high level of
> > satisfaction with our vehicles.
>
> CR says their surveys show no correlation between satisfaction and
> reliability. And since this thread hasn't been about reliability,

"problem rate" of transmissions isn't about reliability?

> why
> do you bring up satisfaction?
>

That's silly. Are you arguing that people have a high level of satisfaction
with vehicles they consider to have low reliability?

> > This is what Daniel is objecting to with the CR surveys, and what he's
> > trying to get you to use your brain to figure out for yourself.
>
> That's not the impression I got from him. I thought he didn't like
> the surveys because they didn't include nearly enough information to
> make sound conclusions.
>
> > I hope that you aren't insulted that I spelled it out for you.
>
> You haven't spelled out anything, at least not well or in public.
>

I think the problem is you haven't been paying attention.

Ted