Recycling, even good for american cars.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Recycling, even good for american cars.

Originally posted by Spec


Where, in that phrase do you see anything about reliability?

Spec.

We all know that american cars these days, well, for the last 20 years, have been a bit crappy if compared to other countries.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
J.D. Powers actually does a full statistical sampling and uses measurable and varifiable data unlike you precious consumer reports which relies upon nonstatical sampling

You say this constantly but you don't seem to comprehend the counterarguments...

JD Powers randomly calls people and asks them on the spot how many defects they have in their car.

Consumer Reports sends postage-paid forms with detailed descriptions of what constitutes a defect and in what category that consumers can complete at their leisure.

Both methods are subject to non-response bias (I always hang up, "Sorry not interested" when polled because I despise people randomly calling me), but I am more apt to fill out a form on my leisure and mail it in.

The main difference between Consumer Reports and JD Power is JD Power makes its money by selling rights to use their names and trophies in advertising to predominately American car companies. Consumer Reports is completely nonprofit and stands nothing to gain or lose by their findings, while if JD Power ranks American cars poorly the American car manufacturers won't license their results and JD Powers makes no money...

If you think about the situation aside from your incoherent misspelled ramblings about statistical sampling, which is completely offbase to begin with, you can see why JD Powers is only relevant when concerned with advertising and press releases -- not with real world results.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MMC
Am I right in thinking that that is a US study about which US cars are best in the US?

J.D. Powers is a multinational company who doesn't get money from any of the manufacturers based upon how they rank. At least not directly. It continually ranked Japanese cars higher throughout the 80's and the first half of the 90's. The American manufacturers didn't start doing better until their quality improved in the late 90's.

There is no reason to believe it is unobjective.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
J.D. Powers is a multinational company who doesn't get money from any of the manufacturers based upon how they rank. At least not directly.

Oh, don't be obtuse.

It's almost entirely American manufacturers that use JD Powers in their advertising. It is therefore incentive for JD Powers, an American for-profit company, to rank American cars as high as possible so that the American manufacturers continue to pay them for rights to use their awards.

The whole system is completely flawed as a benchmark for reliability. Why do you think JD Power's recent "revamp" of how they score reliability favored American companies over imports? They even added amazingly subjective stuff like counting systems they find "difficult to use" as a reliability defect...and lo and behold for cars like BMW they subjectively decided it was hard to use, tanking their rating...

[Dinner]

Wrong Asher. J.D. Powers has been given direct access to manufacturer data. It uses recall data, measurements such as body panel gaps, frequency of repairs (warrenty or otherwise), cost of repairs, length of time the repairs took, and similiar data.

That is had data which can be measured and reproduced. It isn't wishy washy crap like "How do you feel your car has performed over the last two years?"

That's what Consumer Reports does.

[Dinner]

The hard to use rating was roundly criticized due to its subjectivity. Therefor that is clearly placed outside the other factors which the final ranking are based upon. If someone wants to know what the scores are excluding that one subjective rating then it is on the website.

It maybe impossible to totally eliminate subjectivity but J.D. Powers actually goes out of its way to eliminate it where ever possible. That's why manufacturers use it. Where as Consumer Reports has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, but subjective "I really like my car" type crap.

[Spec]

Ok Oerdin. Let me define...again...

American cars have been crappy for the last 20 years compared to other countries because they generaly dont handle as well (have a lot less lateral acceleration), have big engines for no power ( 3.0l ford engine for 140hp when a 1.8l jdm engine puts out 140 to 195hp), gas/mileage is relly poor generaly, rpms suck (average of 5500 rpm), american cars have a great 0-60 output in general but nothing after 70mph...

Shall I go on?

Has nothing to do with reliability. Understand what you will, twist my words anyway you want, I dont give a **** about reliability. Hell, my winter beater is an american car. 3.0l Ford with 137hp....Sigh. Now that's crappy.

Spec.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wrong Asher. J.D. Powers has been given direct access to manufacturer data.

First party data, that's incredible! I'm sure it's 100% accurate, given that the companies who want to advertise their JD Powers awards know JD Powers looks at the data.

By the way, this is wrong anyway. It seems you don't know what you're talking about...see below in bold.

That is had data which can be measured and reproduced. It isn't wishy washy crap like "How do you feel your car has performed over the last two years?"

That's what Consumer Reports does.

Have you ever filled out a report? Customer satisfaction is one question, but there's many others with specific questions such as "Have you had your transmission replaced in the past 5 years?"

Which is far more interesting and relevant in terms of reliability than finding out how many defects were found and fixed in factories the day they were shipped...

Some insight:

For all of its faults, the heart of Consumers Union is generally in the right place. Though they're a bit stuck in their ways, the primary goal of the people who publish Consumer Reports is to help consumers.

In contrast, far and away the #1 goal at J.D. Power is to make money. Now, there is nothing wrong with seeking to make money in itself. This is what businesses are supposed to do. But it becomes an issue when the pursuit of profits not only limits the extent to which consumers receive helpful information, but can actually encourage distorted consumer perceptions of the information that is provided.

I approached J.D. Power with my proposed research a couple of years ago. They weren't interested because they didn't see how they'd earn more money with it than their existing research was already earning. They didn't disagree that my research would help consumers more. But that's not a priority for them.

In the end, you can always count on J.D. Power to tailor the quality and quantity of the information it releases to the public so that its profits are maximized. It does not care if consumers' perceptions are distorted. It does not care about any unfair impact on the manufacturers. All it cares about is how many millions it can pressure the manufacturers into forking over.

J.D. Power collects data at two time points. The Initial Quality Study (IQS) surveys vehicle owners after 90 days of ownership. The Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) does the same after three years of ownership. The VDS used to survey consumers after five years of ownership, but a couple years ago this was changed to three years to better suit manufacturers' needs. Once a vehicle design is more than three years old manufacturers rarely update it, so reliability information on older vehicles is of no use to them.

One issue with this approach is that people often associate the IQS numbers with reliability, when it is more a measure of assembly quality. Through inspection at the plant and/or dealership can significantly reduce this number. IQS might be a good predictor of long-term reliability, and the VDS might be a good predictor of even longer-term reliability, but to my knowledge J.D. Power has not presented evidence to support this common inference.

Update June 2006: this year J.D. Power has broadened what its IQS study measures to include "design quality" in addition to the "production quality" measured in past IQS studies. What is "design quality"? I haven't yet found a clear definition, but as far as I can tell it refers to the ease of use and perceived quality of the car's various bits. "Production quality," on the other hand, refers to how often things break and need to be repaired. These are two very different things, and ideally would be reported in two different stats. By combining them in one stat, J.D. Power makes it unclear what any specific score represents. Worse, many people will continue to assume that IQS represents how much trouble a car is likely to be, when the latest changes only make this further from the truth.

That's why manufacturers use it. Where as Consumer Reports has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, but subjective "I really like my car" type crap.

Again, this is completely incorrect.

What's your beef with nonprofit consumer advocacy groups? You've constantly flat-out lied in this issue many, many times...it's perplexing to me.

[Dinner]

Ford Fusion: Price: $21,275 (V-6)
Engine: 3.0L DOHC V-6, 221 hp, 205 lb-ft

Chevy Impala: Price: $21,990 (base)
Engines: 3.5L OHV V-6, 211 hp, 214 lb-ft; 3.9L OHV V-6, 242 hp, 242 lb-ft; 5.3L OHV V-8, 303 hp, 323 lb-ft

Toyota Camry: Base Price: Estimated range $19,500-$27,000
Engine: 2.4-liter in-line four, 158 hp/161 lb-ft; 3.5-liter V-6, 268 hp/248 lb-ft; 2.4-liter in-line four and electric motor, 192 hp combined

VW Passat: Base price range: $22,950-$31,900
Engine: 2.0-liter in-line four, 197 hp/207 lb-ft; 3.6-liter V-6, 280 hp/265 lb-ft

Honda Accord (hybrid, can someone find the standard accord specs?) : PRICE: $30,000 (est.)
ENGINE: Gasoline-electric hybrid, 245-hp (est.), 3.0-liter V-6

[Dinner]

Asher you are just looking at one study. J.D. Powers does several dozen different studies. Nice how you pick and chose to suit your needs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Asher you are just looking at one study. J.D. Powers does several dozen different studies. Nice how you pick and chose to suit your needs.

I'm talking about their initial quality and long term reliability studies. Both are flawed for the same reasons.

The long term reliability one is flawed additionally because the time period in question is still under warranty, which is no cost to consumers...

[Spec]

Are those all new cars Oerdin. Oh, yes they are.

But what about the last 20 years, like I specified, meaning form around 1975 to 1997 more or less.

Please, get me some info. Not for me, but for you.

Spec.

[Sikander]

What we really need is some sort of statistical journal that can sort out which statistical journals are most trustworthy.

[Saras]

There's this law of decreasing marginal utility of reliability. Design is what matters. And imho, Camaro is teh shiznit!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Well, I wonder, are they carbon copies of the old cars, or do they employ the latest safety stuff, and other modern stuff? Maybe that car is infact hybrid...

considering my 2006 Mustang has air bags, I'd say they have the latest safety stuff. It even has a sensor in the passenger seat to disable the airbag if the weight is too low.