Bias Against Domestic Cars

PerfectReign wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:26:09 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
> scratched out:
>
>>> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
>>> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>> LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
>> early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
>> special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
>> makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
>>
>> Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
>> marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
>> business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
>> unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
>> same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.
>
> Saturn vehicles are unreliable?

Look at the J.D. Power long term dependability results if you don't
believe Consumer Reports.

On Nov 27, 10:15*am, Vic Smith >
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:26:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 9:52*am, Vic Smith > wrote:
>
> >Hi Vic!
>
> >> Not getting into statistical analysis methods, I'll note the CR has
> >> NEVER given sampling sizes on a model basis. *Only total surveys.
> >> I am perfectly willing to be corrected on that.
>
> >You won't be.
>
> Hey Caviller! *Long time no hear. Those were fun days when Steve was
> playing the fool. *Persistent cuss, wasn't he?
> He did have some good points about Saturn timing chain
> lubrication/failures, just somewhat over the top.
> He was touting the Toyota he owned of course.
> Pretty proud of how he flew from S.F to LA to cut a deal on it and
> take advantage of dealer price differentials. *He did a good job on
> that, and is to be commended. *He really "loved" that Toyota.
> And here he is - a CR subscriber I guess - claiming people aren't
> biased.
> hehe.
>
> --Vic *

Yeah, some things never change. Not in our case, though. Three kids
later and we have a Honda minivan and now a Toyota Prius. Nothing
against domestics. I'd have rather had a Fusion Hybrid, especially
for the extra room and superior crash protection. Unfortunately,
those available at the time were almost $10k more expensive than our
base Prius. Funny thing, CR has had mixed reviews on the Prius, too.
We bought one anyway. From reading owner forums, you'd think the
chronic complaints amounted to a lemon, but they rate pretty well in
reliability according to CR, also. Go figure!

Hadn't thought about my Saturn in a while. Decent enough car at the
time. I do miss my stereo system. These days, it's factory stereo
and sports/news radio as I run the kids around town. Pathetic, I know,
but not as bad as trolling newsgroups in a personal war against
certain products or companies.

On Nov 27, 11:08*am, SMS > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Plus, the unintentional bias comes from the part that because they
> > survey only their own readers,
>
> So you believe that a CR reader that bought a Ford or Chevy is more
> likely to admit to problems than a CR reader that bought a Toyota or
> Honda? Where's your evidence of that, LOL?

Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. Doing a survey in this
fashion opens up the results to various biases and errors not present
in a scientific, randomly sampled survey. But you're right about one
thing, there's no way to prove it. Why? Because CR keeps all their
methodology secret. There's no way to know how they massage their
data, unlike what you'd find in any respectable peer reviewed medical,
economics, statistics or other scientific journal. You appear to
trust CR blindly, at least when it suits your agenda. I remain
skeptical. I can live with that.

wrote:

> Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. Doing a survey in this
> fashion opens up the results to various biases and errors not present
> in a scientific, randomly sampled survey. But you're right about one
> thing, there's no way to prove it. Why? Because CR keeps all their
> methodology secret. There's no way to know how they massage their
> data, unlike what you'd find in any respectable peer reviewed medical,
> economics, statistics or other scientific journal. You appear to
> trust CR blindly, at least when it suits your agenda. I remain
> skeptical. I can live with that.

So you also distrust J.D. Power whose results almost always are the same
as what CR finds, just with less detail on each sub-system's reliability?

These complaints about CR never change and never have any validity. The
people that complain are those that feel that a poor rating somehow
makes them look bad for having not researched their purchase carefully.
Yet an attitude of "don't make the same mistake I did" would be better
than trying to induce others to make the same mistake they did, with the
added benefit of encouraging the manufacture to correct the problems
rather than to spend their money on marketing and advertising trying to
con more naive consumers into making a poor purchasing decision. These
people will find something to complain about in every survey by every
entity.

If all the Saturn owners that were so quick to dismiss Consumer Reports
and J.D. Power survey results had instead directed their energies toward
encouraging Saturn to correct the reliability problems than maybe Saturn
would have had sufficient sales to be able to continue in business.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:26:09 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> I'll bite. I'm looking at the April, 2009 auto issue. Let's take the
>> Ford Fusion on page 89. I see lots of red circles. I'm not seeing
>> them state any numbers aside from the model year and the "6" in V6.
>> No sample size for this model is given, though you claim it is always
>> stated. No margin of error for the reliability projection. Nothing
>> of statistical value whatsoever. You must still be getting the
>> special edition? Please share.
>
>They state the sample size for the whole survey, and they also state
>that they leave out models for which they get too low a number or
>responses for the data to be statistically valid. Fortunately the survey
>is so large that only really niche vehicles are left out for lack of data.
>
>> Well, I engaged in the amusement provided by helping to debunk your
>> anti-Saturn rhetoric and finding all your contradictions, anyway.
>
>LOL, sure you did. It's interesting that all the things I reported on so
>early turned out to be completely true, and resulted in recalls or
>special service campaigns by Saturn. You debunked nothing. But if it
>makes you feel good to think that you did, go right ahead believing it.
>
>Saturn's demise was a direct result of their basing an entire company on
>marketing hype that could not fool enough people to sustain the
>business, and could not overcome the fact that the vehicles were
>unreliable. When CR and J.D. Power pointed out these facts, you saw the
>same kind of sour grapes you see now with the claims of bias.

You still don't seem to understand the bias inherent in the
pre-selected (subscribers) and self-selecting respondents to their
survey. Think of it this way, if FOX news (or any other channels
news) polled their listeners asking them to rate the "level of
satisfaction" with TV news shows, do you think the results would be a
meaningful reflection on which news shows the "average" person finds
satisfactory?

On Nov 27, 12:45*pm, SMS > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. *Doing a survey in this
> > fashion opens up the results to various biases and errors not present
> > in a scientific, randomly sampled survey. *But you're right about one
> > thing, there's no way to prove it. *Why? *Because CR keeps all their
> > methodology secret. *There's no way to know how they massage their
> > data, unlike what you'd find in any respectable peer reviewed medical,
> > economics, statistics or other scientific journal. *You appear to
> > trust CR blindly, at least when it suits your agenda. *I remain
> > skeptical. *I can live with that.
>
> So you also distrust J.D. Power whose results almost always are the same
> as what CR finds, just with less detail on each sub-system's reliability?


JD Power? I haven't looked at their information in many years. I
also did not mention them on this thread. In general, I do tend not
to give the benefit of the doubt to any media source that hides their
methodology and statistical information, then puts results into dumbed
down circles. I read my monthly CR magazine with a grain of salt, but
it's fine if you don't share the same skepticism. Heck, I know many
people that treat CR like holy text and buy nothing but their top
rated items, simply because they think that a lack of advertising
guarantees a lack of bias. To each their own. It is a free country.
Where the amusement comes in is with people that swear by some
magazine (or other media source), except when they discover it doesn't
support some specific agenda. Hypocrites are funny. So, which one is
it? Do you think CR is always unbiased and accurate? Or, do you
think they were wrong to give a good reliability verdict to the Saturn
S-series sedans?


> These complaints about CR never change and never have any validity. The
> people that complain are those that feel that a poor rating somehow
> makes them look bad for having not researched their purchase carefully.
> Yet an attitude of "don't make the same mistake I did" would be better
> than trying to induce others to make the same mistake they did, with the
> added benefit of encouraging the manufacture to correct the problems
> rather than to spend their money on marketing and advertising trying to
> con more naive consumers into making a poor purchasing decision. These
> people will find something to complain about in every survey by every
> entity.
>
> If all the Saturn owners that were so quick to dismiss Consumer Reports
> and J.D. Power survey results had instead directed their energies toward
> encouraging Saturn to correct the reliability problems than maybe Saturn
> would have had sufficient sales to be able to continue in business.


Why would Saturn S-series owners dismiss CR's reliability ratings when
they were generally good? Despite changing the topic again, you're
still not making any sense. As for reliability, even based on
Consumer Reports, most vehicles these days are pretty reliable and
warranties are pretty good. For me, reliability is far less important
to me today than it was 20 years ago. I'd rather buy on the basis of
safety, convenience, comfort, performance, etc. On the other hand, if
I published Consumer Reports, I'd sure want reliability to seem like a
big deal. Those results sell a lot of copy and they need to hype them
as much as possible. And so, some people buy primarily on a
perception of reliability because that's what is important to them.
Again, it's a free country.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> You still don't seem to understand the bias inherent in the
> pre-selected (subscribers) and self-selecting respondents to their
> survey. Think of it this way, if FOX news (or any other channels
> news) polled their listeners asking them to rate the "level of
> satisfaction" with TV news shows, do you think the results would be a
> meaningful reflection on which news shows the "average" person finds
> satisfactory?

How about I don't think of a company with a news channel doing a survey
of which is the best news channel? Maybe you could explain how such a
survey is in any way related to a non-profit, independent consumer
organization doing a statistically sound survey--but I doubt it.

You still fail to understand that Consumer Reports and J.D. Power aren't
asking _anyone_ to rate vehicles. They're asking owners what problems
they've had with the vehicles they own. From those answers they get
their ratings. The J.D. Power ratings are from a random survey. The CR
ratings are from surveys that subscribers choose to return. The results
are always very similar. No one is asking a Toyota owner what their
opinion of Fords is or vice-versa.

Those that complain that CR surveys are filled out by subscribers are
just looking for something, anything, to complain about because they
don't like the results. No doubt there's something about the J.D. Power
surveys that they also can find that they don't like. Nothing but a
double-blind survey would satisfy them (and most likely that would not
satisfy them either)l; they're very bitter and angry.

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
news
> Derek Gee wrote:
>> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Derek Gee wrote:
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Derek Gee" > wrote in message
>>>>>> I tend to believe the Power survey due to the better methodology,
>>>>>> plus I have two first hand owner reports of failures (disabled) of
>>>>>> Scion models.
>>>>> The problem with Powers is they rate "initial quality" I happen to
>>>>> own a car rated very high by them for initial quality and they were
>>>>> correct; I was very pleased with it for a while. Just about the time
>>>>> the warranty ran out (at 18 months I had 36000 miles) the car started
>>>>> to deteriorate and has been falling apart ever since. Lots of little
>>>>> things like switches that don't work as well as big things like the
>>>>> transmission. Initial quality does not equal durability.
>>>> No, Powers has TWO different studies, the IQS (Initial Quality Study),
>>>> and VDS (Vehicle Dependability Study). I pretty much ignore all of the
>>>> IQS surveys as most of the automakers are within a couple of defects
>>>> per 100 vehicles of each other. It's the VDS that's the important one.
>>>> Here's a link to the 2009 study, go check it out...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...df/2009043.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Derek
>>> But this is still a survey, with the limitations of a survey.
>>>
>>> Plus, the study was with cars that were about 2 or 3 years old (2006
>>> model year study done in Oct. 2008). It doesn't say how well cars hold
>>> up after this period. What would be a far better study would be a study
>>> of what is actually replaced by owners during the life of the car. It
>>> would be a hard study to do.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> Closest thing to that is dealership warranty and post-warranty info, and
>> I doubt you'll get any of that. Maybe some large fleet customers might
>> share info like that...
>>
>> Derek
>
> Yet the way cars and trucks in large fleets is not the same as regular
> people.

Very true, but it's a good way to get high mileage data in a short period of
time for analysis purposes.

Derek

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:09:01 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
scratched out:

>> Saturn vehicles are unreliable?
>
> Look at the J.D. Power long term dependability results if you don't
> believe Consumer Reports.

I just know that my wife's five-year-old Vue has had zero issues.

Sure it is small and very compact, but it has been reliable.



--
perfectreign
www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com
a turn signal is a statement, not a request

PerfectReign wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:09:01 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
> scratched out:
>
>>> Saturn vehicles are unreliable?
>> Look at the J.D. Power long term dependability results if you don't
>> believe Consumer Reports.
>
> I just know that my wife's five-year-old Vue has had zero issues.
>
> Sure it is small and very compact, but it has been reliable.

Is that the one with the Honda V6 and Honda transmission in it? GM used
a Honda engine from 2004 to 2007 model years, according Wikipedia.