Bias Against Domestic Cars

Our friend dr_jeff must be correct, everything in Wikipedia is always right
on the money.

"dr_jeff" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Our friend dr_jeff must be correct, everything in Wikipedia is always right
> on the money.

First, please don't insult me and call me your friend.

Second, not everything in any source is always correct. Even I have been
known to be wrong. Wikipedia often has good information, but not always.

Jeff

> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
>

dr_jeff wrote:
> 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.

The engine is from Honda, not sure about the transmission.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:28:17 -0800, SMS fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
scratched out:


>>> 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.
>
> The engine is from Honda, not sure about the transmission.

Yes and yes.

I'm a bit worried because of the low reputation of these transmissions.
However, I have theorized that most people with the Honda V6 transmission
who have had issues were driving much heavier cars (the Oddesy minivan).

Crossing fingers.



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

On Nov 27, 2:04*pm, wrote:
> On Nov 27, 12:45*pm, SMS > wrote:
>
> > wrote:

> 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?

It is a tough choice when you're caught in a contradiction like this.
Take a stand and make a difficult choice? Ignore it altogether? Or
find some cop out response?

In the mean time, I still haven't found a scrap of statistical
information supporting any of the reliability verdicts or predictions
from the April, 2009 issue. Blind faith is a fascinating phenomenon
when it comes to survey results. I mean, like you said, CR is a non-
profit, independent organization. They don't even accept
advertising. On that basis, does it mean you put complete trust into
every independent, non-profit organization? Heck, I coordinate an
independent, 501c3 non-proft that accepts no advertising. Funny thing
is, nowhere in the articles or IRS requirements is any stipulation of
being honest, unbiased, or accurate. I guess it's no surprise how a
lot of these charities get money, when there are people that put so
much blind faith into them because they assume independent and non-
profit also means they are completely trustworthy with no potential
for typical human motivations like greed.

"SMS" > wrote in message news:4b0e0214$0$1664
> The number of people that don't want to admit that something they bought
> has problems, simply because they paid a high price for it, is offset by
> the number of people that complain more about any problems because they
> paid a high price for it. In any case, the number of people that are so
> inclined to exhibit these behaviors is very small.

We bought Toyotas after decades of buying substandard GM crap.
We have not ONE complaint against the Toyotas.

The GMs were crap. Each one had a different, serious, and unwarranted
problem. Every freaking one of them.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>
> Sorry but human nature is such that the typical Toyota owner, who
> bought it because it was supposed to be so great, is not going to
> acknowledge that he paid a higher price and has just as many problems
> as he's had with every other car.

I damned sure wont acknowledge that because it isnt true.
I have had **** with EVERY freaking GM product I owned since the
early 80s.
Yes, I paid a premium price, and yes I got a car that is not a piece of
****.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:05:11 -0600, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>
>> Sorry but human nature is such that the typical Toyota owner, who
>> bought it because it was supposed to be so great, is not going to
>> acknowledge that he paid a higher price and has just as many problems
>> as he's had with every other car.
>
>I damned sure wont acknowledge that because it isnt true.
>I have had **** with EVERY freaking GM product I owned since the
>early 80s.
>Yes, I paid a premium price, and yes I got a car that is not a piece of
>****.


Have to agree on the GM. Only one I've owned newer than 1967 was more
trouble than any 2 others of any brand. Both old high-miler Toyotas
gave excellent service - and that was in the '80s when they rusted. My
GM was a '95 3.8 TransSport.

I don't buy new cars. My last 3 Fords have been OK - not stellar in
the quality department but much better than the Pontiac. My last
several Chryslers have been OK too.

If the Toyotas didn't hold their value so well I'd likely be driving
them now, but I buy what I can buy 5 years old for $5000 - $6000 with
100,000km (60,000 miles) on them and Toyotas don't fall into that
price range up here even with 300,000 kms.

That may be your opinion but one would suggest that your stop by you local
GM, or other domestic dealership, and count all of the so called superior
imports you see on their use car lots, that were traded in for a domestic
brand.

Obviously not all import buyers believe the import THEY bought was better
than a domestic, because they did not by another import.

In addition you can look at the import dealership used car lots and see how
many switched brands, as well.



"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SMS" > wrote in message news:4b0e0214$0$1664
>> The number of people that don't want to admit that something they bought
>> has problems, simply because they paid a high price for it, is offset by
>> the number of people that complain more about any problems because they
>> paid a high price for it. In any case, the number of people that are so
>> inclined to exhibit these behaviors is very small.
>
> We bought Toyotas after decades of buying substandard GM crap.
> We have not ONE complaint against the Toyotas.
>
> The GMs were crap. Each one had a different, serious, and unwarranted
> problem. Every freaking one of them.
>
>

One will see a lot of Toyotas traded in on GM brands


"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>>
>> Sorry but human nature is such that the typical Toyota owner, who
>> bought it because it was supposed to be so great, is not going to
>> acknowledge that he paid a higher price and has just as many problems
>> as he's had with every other car.
>
> I damned sure wont acknowledge that because it isnt true.
> I have had **** with EVERY freaking GM product I owned since the
> early 80s.
> Yes, I paid a premium price, and yes I got a car that is not a piece of
> ****.