Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Pickup Comparo

1232426282936

Comments

  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    CS is about the best most seasoned statistical survey around, and they get enough samples to be close enough.

    Without getting too far off track, did you know that Consumer Reports only surveys it's subscribers for vehicle reliability?

    It is a critical, unacceptable flaw in their method of sampling.
  • 2005lekc2005lekc Posts: 145
    moparbad,

    Why are CR surveys flawed? I have been a subscriber for over 30 years and have bought
    most of my vehicles based on their surveys.

    I purchased 9 vehicles based on their surveys
    and everyone of them turned out to be trouble free just as their survey suggested.

    Maybe I should say that the last vehicle has
    been trouble free for the 19 months I have had it. That is really not enough time to say that it will be as trouble free as the other 8.

    The rest of the vehicles were owned for from 5 to 24 years.

    I feel very comfortable taking their recommen-
    dations. From my experience they have been dead on in accuracy.

    OkieScot
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    Why are CR surveys flawed? I have been a subscriber for over 30 years and have bought
    most of my vehicles based on their surveys


    I agree with you!

    In my opinion... Subscribers to CR tend to actually be concerned about the reliability of various products.

    They are used to reading the reports and are possibly better able to take an unbiased survey without emotion. :shades:

    Kip
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Why are CR surveys flawed? I have been a subscriber for over 30 years and have bought
    most of my vehicles based on their surveys


    Vehicle owners in the general poplulation do not have an equal chance of being represented in the data. CR limits the population of the sample to subscribers. The data set is biased and pre-determined to the demograpics of subscribers of CR.
    The problem is not the survey, the problem is who is surveyed.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Anyone know if Ford will still offer the Ranger next year?
    I believe the St. Paul plant is scheduled to close this calendar year.
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    Vehicle owners in the general population do not have an equal chance of being represented in the data. CR limits the population of the sample to subscribers.

    That is my point.

    CR has quite a few subscribers. They are people that like to know which particular product in a particular segment works best. They are the best people in the world to ask questions of.

    If you sent out 10K Surveys at random to the general population you will get back a very small percentage. Send it out to people who are "IN TO" wanting the best bang for the buck and you will most likely get back a higher percentage of the surveys and most likely the people are a bit better informed as to what they are doing.

    A prime example of informed and uninformed is this:

    We had a 95 Maxima. I took it if for one of those services where they rotate the tires align the front end and so forth. All went well, but when I got home there was a phone mail asking me to call the Nissan service dept. They told me that the tech that did my car had discovered that his Tool for torquing the wheel lugs was set wrong , could I please bring it back so he could check the lugs. I did and the tech re torqued the lugs. Another time a tech somehow broke the oxygen sensor on the same car.

    If my wife had taken a survey she would have said we had 2 things go wrong with the car. I knew the problems were caused by the people working on it. So I would have said that nothing had gone wrong. I was thankful that they caught the problems and fixed them.

    The data set is biased and per-determined to the demographics of subscribers of CR.

    I don't see how the surveys are biased.

    If a question was asked, "Don't you think the transmission is more troublesome in Explorers than in Hondas"? that would be biased.

    When it says "Have you had problems with the any of the components of the drive train?" and the transmission is one of the choices; How is that biased?

    How do demographics fit into the equation? :)

    Kip
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    How do demographics fit into the equation?

    Kip


    That is a basic concept, that if I remember correctly, was explained in "Elementary Statistics" and was covered in depth in "Linear Models and Experimental Design" which were both 200 level classes.
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    If you say so!

    Just doesn't change my mind! ;)

    Kip
  • jfritschjfritsch Posts: 958
    Although someone has pointed out that the CR survey is not perfect, it is still the one of the most useful surveys of reliability out there. They have refined some of their methods to minimize some of its weaknesses.

    I don't think there is anything that "wildly" skews the results(much less demographics for instance) , just due to the nature of the topic and simplicity of the survey. There are weakness in their methodology for sure, as in all surveys, (limiting to their subscribers to keep costs down etc, ) but no deal killers. (Ie. asking all white voters what they think of AL Sharpton)

    Demographics for a Democrat or Republican? Yow! For pure opinion polls its all demographics

    Demographics for "did you have any transmission repairs for your Cadillac?" still there... (older buyers tend to be less (more?) picky etc I think CR tries to take this into account too) but with 310000 readers (responses?) and enough samples to reduce the variance of the result per vehicle (note that some are not rated, with not enough responses to the survey) you still have one of the more useful tools out there.

    CR (weren't they the first to do this? in the early 70's?) may be one of the reasons that the # of defects between the best and the worst has been shrinking for the last decade or so. Ironically if anything it is this that may be making the survey less meaningful.

    It was one of the first resources one could go for for perspective, with data from thousands (not the futile, ask your neighbor and folks at gas stations how they like their car) long before the www was even dreamed of.

    There's nothing that skews the data in CR enough to make it useless or even limited usefulness. To point out that it isn't perfect isn't meaningful.

    Happy Hunting

    --jjf
  • 2005lekc2005lekc Posts: 145
    Moparbad,

    I fail to see what you are talking about with the demographics. Judging from the variety of vehicles that are surveyed it looks like there are people who drive just about all of the cars
    made to allow CR to include them.

    I know quite a few people who are CR subscri-
    bers and believe me most of them could not be grouped in any particular fashion. Most of my friends have more money than I do and buy nicer cars more often than I can.

    Most of us do not have the same hobbies, care for the same sort of recreation, etc. So I do not see us as all being in the same demographic
    category.

    I have purchased not only vehicles recommended
    by CR, but also many appliances and electron-
    ics. I have seldom ever purchased anything they recommended that did not turn out to be satisfactory.

    Granted the surveys are taken from subscrib-
    ers but then as a subscriber it suits me just fine. You can purchase CR without being a subscriber, but it looks like if you buy it then that would put you in the same category as
    the subscriber because of your interest.

    I still fail to see a problem.

    OkieScot
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    I still fail to see a problem.

    OkieScot


    Unfortunately :( , the vast majority of the population does not have the specific background that makes the problem immediately apparent.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Anybody have any opinion on the revised engines going into the Colorado/Canyon (2.9L I-4, 3.7L I-5)?

    I didn't mean to start a debate on magazines.
  • jfritschjfritsch Posts: 958
    It is a mediocre truck paired with a poor (I4) or mediocre (i5) engine. I had a friend who had an offer of 21600 on a ridgeline 4wd RT. I told him he would be insane to buy a Colorado at a higher price.

    A test drive vs Tacoma, Frontier or RL will show that quickly. The fact that they are competitively priced makes a bad situation worse. Reviews in Consumer reports, Edmunds, etc will tend to reinforce this. I agree with the previous post that it fails to keep up with the Silverado in quality or sturdiness. That said its probably outselling each of the others by 2-5:1. Its getting by on its good looks. (I like the exterior styling the best of them all.. Once again GMs sheet metal comes to the rescue)

    I haven't driven the I4 model but after driving the I5 I fear it.

    --jjf

    Anybody have any opinion on the revised engines going into the Colorado/Canyon (2.9L I-4, 3.7L I-5)?
  • Good catch [thegraduate] with gas requirements for the Frontier.
    Of all these trucks posted I can't decide which is the 'least a truck' the Honda Ridgeline or the GMC Colorado/Canyon..... :D
  • I found it interesting almost humorous that when GM came out their '07 full size trucks that they kept the 4.3 rather than use the much tooted I5. GM said the I5 was a much better engine than the 4.3......so they though... :confuse:
    I use to get 18-19 city and 23mpg highway(65-70mph)with my '95 GMC Sonoma 4x4 5sp. I fail to see that the I5 betters this.
    And now to add insult to injury GM no longer offers the 5sp with the I5...... :confuse: :sick:
  • The I5 is NOT a truck engine just like the VTEC is not a truck engine. Truck engines should not be high reving to get high torque to the wheels 'if' you want a truck for what a truck was initially designed and built for.
    But if you read about what what one of the popular magazines said why they choose it as 'Truck of the Year' was that Honda wanted to redefine what a truck is. That's ok if this is what you want.
    I got grief from the guys in my hood for buying my Nissan Frontier. They called it a 'grocery getter'. I replied with two statements. The first was, 'I'll drive/buy what ever you want me to, just make the payments...... :D
    And now that gas has been hitting the $3/gal when do you want me to drive you to take you to buy your groceries because your 'full size' GMC is getting too expensive to drive.... :D :surprise:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The I5 is NOT a truck engine just like the VTEC is not a truck engine.

    I'll agree that the VTEC Ridgeline isn't a truck engine; it (the original 3.5)was designed for the Acura RL sedan back in the 90s, and made its bigger debut in the 1999 Odyssey, where it produced 210 hp and 229 lb-ft of torque.

    The GM 3.5L I-5 and 2.8L I-4 were supposedly the 4.2L I-6 from the Trailblazer/Envoy twins, with a cylinder lopped off.

    I think a couple of people missed it when I mentioned the increased engine size of the Canyon/Colorado.

    Old figures were 2.8L I-4 w/175hp, 185 lb-ft@ 2800RPM, 3.5L I-5 w/220hp @5600RPM, 225 lb-ft @2800 RPM.

    From the GM site:

    Engine: Vortec 2.9L DOHC I-4 engine with 185 hp and 190 lb.-ft. of torque (Standard on 1WT, LS, Regular and Extended Cab 1LT and 2WD Crew Cab 1LT models)
    The Vortec 2.9L DOHC four-cylinder engine delivers 185 hp at 5600 rpm and 190 lb.-ft. of torque at 2800 rpm.

    Engine: Vortec 3.7L DOHC I-5 with 242 hp and 242 lb.-ft. of torque (Standard on 2LT and 3LT models; optional on 1WT and 1LT models)
    The Vortec 3.7L DOHC I-5 engine delivers 242 hp at 5600 rpm and 242 lb.-ft. of torque at 4600 rpm.


    From the Honda site, you can see that the power peaks are similar on the larger engine GM and the Honda:

    Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net, Rev 8/04) 247 @ 5750

    Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 245 @ 4500


    I could not find EPA numbers on the revised GM engines, though I did try.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Minor correction.

    "I'll agree that the VTEC Ridgeline isn't a truck engine; it (the original 3.5)was designed for the Acura RL sedan back in the 90s, and made its bigger debut in the 1999 Odyssey, where it produced 210 hp and 229 lb-ft of torque."

    The original 3.5L engine used by the Acura 3.5RL in the 1990's is not the same J35 engine used in the Ody, Pilot, Ridgeline, MDX, and the new RL. That first 3.5L unit is based on a very old racing engine.

    The J35 used first in the Ody is an enlarged version of the 3.0L and 3.2L engines used in the Accord and Acura TL.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for the correction... I should've figured that out, considering how long the 3.5 was in use before it came to the Odyssey. Oh well. :)

    Point still stands, I guess; the Ridgeline engine is a van/crossover engine; moreso than a true "truck" engine. It's still more than sufficient at hauling and accelerating.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "Point still stands, I guess; the Ridgeline engine is a van/crossover engine; moreso than a true "truck" engine. It's still more than sufficient at hauling and accelerating."

    That makes the whole truck vs non-truck distinction a little pointless, don't you think?
This discussion has been closed.