A local newspaper is looking to interview consumers who believe an automaker's country of origin is an important part of their buying decision, for better or worse. For example: Have you ruled out buying an American vehicle because of past experience? Or are you trying to "buy American" to support troubled automakers? Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Monday May 1, 2006 by 2:00 PM PST/5:00 EST containing your daytime contact information.
''So, let me understand -- it's biased for a magazine to consider a consistent, positive track record in rendering its decision? What rational reason should it have for ignoring a history of strong performance?''
Yes actually. The definition of unbiased from dictionary.com is as follows: Without bias or prejudice; impartial.
If they were truly unbiased they would look at each new model on its own, as if it were from a brand new car company, one with no history, and they would rate it from there. They would not use past experiences to guess how the vehicle will perform, because that is using prejudice.
If they were truly unbiased they would look at each new model on its own, as if it were from a brand new car company, one with no history, and they would rate it from there. They would not use past experiences to guess how the vehicle will perform, because that is using prejudice.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If the reviewer's job is to predict reliability, it is obligated to consider available data in reaching its conclusion. If a given powertrain has tended to be unreliable in other products, particularly those that have merely been badge engineered, there's no reason to ignore an established history.
Using your logic, a weatherman would be "biased" in favor of precipitation if he predicts rain when there are dark clouds, high humidity and a changing barometer. Predicting rain in such circumstances isn't a form of bias, it's a logical conclusion based upon facts in evidence.
It doesn't say a whole lot about GM products if you believe that the only way to judge them fairly is to ignore their track record. No reason to squander money on such goods when there are others that are more trustworthy.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If the reviewer's job is to predict reliability, it is obligated to consider available data in reaching its conclusion.
If you use true logic, a car's past record can not predict what the current or future quality level may be. Cars get better and worse. By today's standards, Toyota and Honda's quality was very poor at one time. What if nobody would have looked at the cars with a critical eye, and only judged by past quality? In that case, Toyota and Honda may never have never gained a foothold in the USA. Sometimes there is a "turning point" in quality, and savvy car people can recognize it. I am watching Detroit models carefully for signs of a strong commitment to quality. I see nothing significant right now.
I have the 2006 Consumer Reports, and was looking up some car data from the survey which looked pretty bad for say the Lincoln LS. I wanted to see how the auto transmission, now used on Mustangs, did over time. Well, I am totally confused. The 2003 magazine indicates the LS is doing pretty good, as does the 2005 mag. then wham, all the sudden the 2006 shows problems and more problems. Well, I looked up the Cadillacs and same thing. Deville/DTS looks like black marks where they were not before in previous issues of the magazine. Something odd going on. I look up the reliability in MSN Auto and it looks OK. You can go to Consumers Guide on the Net and see what they have listed for reliability issues too, and they may not match what CR data shows. The JD Powers for the past years is available on Edmund's site here, and it may not indicate problems. I use to think Consumers Reports data from a survey was pretty accurate. I have my doubts now. I am baffled. Totally confused by some of the radical changes in say the LS and Deville. Is there something wacky about 2006 issue? If someone can explain - please do. I have bought this book several times over the past few decades to judge reliability of cars. Now I don't know what to think. -Loren
Is there something wacky about 2006 issue? If someone can explain - please do.
It's a difference in methodologies:
-Consumer Reports conducts a survey of car owners, in which owners are asked to report problems based on a list of categories (air conditioning, body integrity, engine, etc.) If the car exhibits a "serious" problem as defined by CR, the owner is supposed to check the right box. CR surveys the last several most recent model years.
-JD Power conducts both an Initial Quality Survey, surveying those who have owned their cars for 90 days, and a Vehicle Dependability Survey, studying cars that have been owned for three years. JD Power's survey pool is necessarily smaller, because it covers fewer years that would JD Power.
-Consumer Guide does not conduct a survey. Its guide rate reliability based upon TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins) reported by the automakers to the federal governments, as well as the opinion rendered by engineers that it hires to study the cars for expected reliability. It does NOT survey owners.
-MSN data comes from AIS, which serves the repair industry. It gets its data from feedback from mechanics ("AIS produces MSN Autos' Reliability Ratings by analyzing patterns displayed by thousands of repair requests the company receives from automotive technicians all across the country.") It does NOT survey owners.
So, summary of the above:
-CR gets its info from owners from several of the most recent model years. At any one time, it is gathering survey data about several of the most recent years of a given nameplate, i.e. a report in the current guide might cover the last several model years individually, i.e. 2000-2005.
-JD Power gets its dependability data only from three year old cars. So the 2006 VDS scores will come from 2003 cars; if things got worse in recent years, JD Power won't pick it up through the VDS category.
-Consumer Guide doesn't survey anyone. It uses government data that isn't fully comprehensive (not all problems end up as TSB's), and then attempts to offer advice based upon its own conclusions.
-MSN makes an estimate based upon mechanic's reports. It seems that AIS is running a help desk, so it is quite possible that routine problems that don't require technical assistance from AIS won't end up in the MSN rankings.
Looking at CR, the 2005 Lincoln LS gets a reliability ranking of much worse than average (lowest of five rankings.) In JD Power, the overall Initial Quality Score based upon that current model year is two stars out of five, which equates to being worse than average. Consumer Guide has no survey to report, and MSN's reliability data from AIS is for the 2003 model.
CR and JD Power are actually giving very similar scores to the 2005 model, they are only one tier apart. Once again, these two sources correlate.
If you use true logic, a car's past record can not predict what the current or future quality level may be.
Let's suppose you are hiring a new employee. Before you sit two candidates: Candidate A has a stellar reputation in your profession, with a verifiable track record of producing strong results. Candidate B has a verifiable record of being a screw-up in your same profession, with sloppy work skills and a high absentee rate.
Now, if you came to me and said, "Using 'true logic,' I've got to conclude that these two candidates are pretty much the same to me," I'm not sure whether I'd laugh at you or send you to the HR department for a final "meeting." The idea that you'd want to completely ignore one's track record in the name of logic would not make your judgment appear to be very sound.
That't the whole problem with this argument. Cars are not people. We tend to get emotionally attached to our cars, and assign human qualities to them. We even give them human names! I'm sorry guys, but unlike people, cars change, and can change quickly. A change in management personell, management or design philosophy, or policy can make a bad car excellent or a good car rubbish overnight. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. Car manufacturers are very much aware of this human failing, and take advantage of our strange loyalty to mechanical things.
There is no doubt a good 30 year track record is very desirable, but a good 4 or 5 year track record is even more important. Dwelling on past glories can make you miss out on a lot of good developments. You should ask "What have they done for me lately?"
Yes, but cars are designed, engineered, assembled and delivered by people. An error in one year is likely to carry over into the next if the bits used to put the car together are the same.
A change in management personell, management or design philosophy, or policy can make a bad car excellent or a good car rubbish overnight. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
You just said it -- it doesn't happen often. The same drivetrain that was a failure in one model year may very well be a failure during the next.
Consumer Reports has the right idea: If the nameplate has changed and the prior model was not good, they will deem it too new to predict. If the nameplate is a carryover from the prior year, they will predict based upon past results. That's a completely logical approach to take.
I have to agree with Socala4 again on his analogy of why you'd pick a car manufacturer with a good track record. Simply put, companies that do well probably have a good track record. A track record is earned and is not lost or won overnight.
Honda and Toyota have spent years developing a track record of trust, dependability, and quality.
The big 3 appear to have a long term track record of only looking at the short term. Sure, they can make an extra few hundred bucks using cheap unreliable parts on each car sale, but in the long run, they've lost many customers doing exactly that, and now look at their current status!
I prefer doing business with companies that have a long track record of selling honest to goodness good cars.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd take Buick because of the dealerships around here and the great JDPowers results for full-sized cars.
The point about reputation from past experience.... that goes out the window with a model change. Look at Avalon claiming a whole new designed (redesigned) Camry base. It's not the previous Avalon. Problems. Look at the 03 Honda. More problems than before, some small some biggies.
They made a change and the reputation didn't carry. Was it the Ridgeline that's an Odyssey? CR called it wonderful because it share a percentage of parts? LaCrosse based on Impala and earlier Regal base--don't know anything, can't predict. Amnesia like Hillary on their part for past record. .
You know Rocky, if Buick and Cadillac keep bucking the American trend to make poor unreliable (POS) :lemon: cars, then I think on my 60th or 70th birthday I'll promise to buy a Buick or Cadillac (provided they stay in business that long (more than 30 years to go till that 60th birthday).
But I'll have to save a lot of money for that, just in case they do have a lot of repair expenses. I'll start my savings from all of the money I save by buying reliable foreign import cars for the next 30 years.
What is the average amount spend on car repairs in the US per vehicle? I probably will spend half of that buying all imports. :P :surprise: :shades:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't know about spending less on repairs and on maintenance throughout the life of a vehicle (I seem to have kept mine for 10 years and 150K mi). But I suggest buying whatever makes you happiest. If you don't think you bought the best thing for your situation, it's a miserable feeling, whether you're right or wrong.
I read people commenting about interiors. I have to laugh because my interiors are just fine; if I didn't like them I wouldn't have written the check from MM for them. I feel that cars and their interiors are compared to your previous cars. If you're used to a brand that's what you want other brands to be like re plastics, gauge layout, etc., or it doesn't feel right. I suspect there's as much psychological planning done on the layouts and feel to try to retain previous customers and force more retention in future as there is on the appearance of the car's front and rears. There was a 60 minutes story years ago about the psychologist who consults with manufacturers about each car's personality, i.e., its appearance. The fronts with headlights have face-like characteristics.
IOW if you like your Accord and want another one because you felt the thing paid its way for you, more power to you. Actually a lot of gray-haired folks around our region have bought them the last many years along with Camrys and seem very happy. They have a Buick reputation I would surmise. Now some of those Hyundai are showing up.
Actually a lot of gray-haired folks around our region have bought them the last many years along with Camrys and seem very happy. They have a Buick reputation I would surmise.
Honda and Toyota retail sales are increasing, while Buick retail sales are decreasing. The last thing that either Toyota or Honda would want is a "Buick reputation."
There is no doubt in my mind that the far greater reliability records of Honda and Toyota vs. the Big 3 translates into large sums of savings in terms of repair costs. Excluding service costs under regular scheduled maintenance, you can spend an awful lot of money keeping an unreliable car running.
Repairs costs can be big time $$$$$$$. Especially if you'd like to see a car reach 200 or 300,000 miles. There are a lot of people that seem to be able to get their Honda's and Toyotas to 300K without much effort or cost.
CR reported that 1st year models and 1st year redesigns seem to have 20% more problems than even 2nd year cars. I have to agree with this finding since I bought a first year car myself.
My fiance's 2005 Civic (a stale design, but perfected and refined in everyway) is a work of art. It's sheer build quality is astounding. Zero defects, zero flaws to date after 16K miles. Yes, this Civic was built in Japan, and frankly, I think you can tell. I would say it was noticeable that her Civic was made in Japan, and that my Accord was either a first year model, suffered quality from being made in the USA, or suffered from 1st year blues by 16K.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
My 03 Accord Coupe V6 purchased in early November of 2002, has cost me exactly zero dollars in repair bills and I've surpassed 56,000 miles recently. I'm very happy with this 0 dollar performance for the first 3.5 years and 56K miles.
I'm elated. I'm loving life not having to spend money on my car for a long time (as I paid it off a while back too). I guess that's why my money's burned a hole in my pocket and I want that new Audi A3 (need more utility/cargo space).
So... I guess I'm one of those Import owners that thinks Japanese cars are indeed far superior, but won't hide it when they have problems. I've reported the problems with my 03 Accord very extensively and honestly, and at one point in time I was very unhappy with the reliablity performance of my car, but after more time and miles, and with Honda's great service, I've grown to appreciate a highly reliable (but not perfect) car.
I'm definitely not in a group that would let HOnda/Toyota get away with lame defects by not reporting them.
For instance, I used to SWEAR by Sony TV's, as bullet proof and last forever TV's. But this year, my Big Screen Sony started to fail, and Sony would not pay for the labor and parts. (the warranty was 1 year, but the TV broke at the 2 year mark - almost exactly to the day) I asked Sony to step up, and they only stepped up partially (offered to pay for parts only) Since I had to pay for labor on a 2 year old TV, you can bet your last dollar my next TV will NOT be a Sony.
Until an import company fails me, you won't see me looking at the Big 3. I think a lot of buyers are in my shoes. Why give somebody else a chance again when the imports have never failed you????
If Honda/Toyota fail me, you won't see me buying them again.
As it stands, I'm trying German next (and I expect less than perfection, but still good reliability). If I don't get it, that'll be another company crossed off the list.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Oh My Gawd you had a problem with your Japanese car. :surprise: You told all of us you banned Dodge vehicles because you had problems with it. I am pretty sure you will give Honda a few free passes, before it get's banned. I'm also almost certain that when you filled out your CR survey you also gave it rave reviews like all those typical import owners.
You told all of us you banned Dodge vehicles because you had problems with it. I am pretty sure you will give Honda a few free passes,
Problems with a big FAT "S" at the end Rockylee!!!! Again, my Accord has caused many warranty visits (mainly do to aesthetic/cosmetic flaws that required two visits each since dealers refuse to carry parts in stock in their inventory). All that being said, I've spend no money repairing my Honda since its warranty expired 20K miles ago.
I think I spent 2K on my Dodge by the time it hit 40K (so 2,000 dollars within 4,000 miles).
I've never EXACTLY counted what that Dodge cost to run to 65,000 miles, because I'm afraid to. I know its in the 5K-8K range, and I don't want to know exactly how much I screwed up. Comparing the problems my Honda had compared to what my Dodge had is like comparing IRAQ's military prowess to our own in the USA. It's simply incomparable, in dollars, in warranty visits, in time lost, in tows required, in every measurable respect.
3 problems that will never get a free pass if they occur before 100K: 1) Transmission failure (if manufacturer doesn't pay for repair) 2) Head Gasket failure 3) A/C failure 4) Engine failure (okay, thats one part that never went bad on the Dodge, but maybe those 3K interval oil changes were good for something!!!) All the problems above are $1,000+ problems when you add up everything involved.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
P.S. Honda earned a free pass by fixing the only major/serious problem my Accord had at 42K miles, which technically was out of warranty, but instead of saying screw you, and "parts just break down" (A dodge service manager quote and response to the question - so why does this car you've been working on all the time keep breaking down?) They said... HOnda will take of you, do you need a rental?
No one from Dodge ever stepped up to say... we'll help pay for repairs. The most I ever got out of them from complaining a lot was a free battery (which wasn't much since a 1 or 2 year old battery was made useless prematurely due to car defects) and I still had to pay the labor for them to install it!
You know what's funny, I thought that Dodge was a decently good car when it RAN, when it wasn't in the shop, but those are huge "when's." It had good handling. It didn't get EPA mileage, not even close
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Problems with a big FAT "S" at the end Rockylee!!!!
I'm not sure what ya meant by this ?
I meant problems as in plural Rockylee (with the Dodge)
The Accords problems are microscopic compared to the problems I had with the Dodge. The Accords problems pale in comparison to the problems I had with the Dodge, get it?
I can count the problems with my HOnda on one hand.
I would have to write a 20 page dissertation on vehicle repair history just to cover the Dodge's history of defects.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
GM or Ford hasn't treated you bad, but your labeling them as the same as your Dodge.
I've explained before on one of these forums why I can generalize from Dodge to all of the big 3. There are a lot of reasons, and I don't want to go into all of them again, but here's one.
CR and other reliability indicators seem to group the Big 3 similarly. Honda and Toyota seemed to be grouped similarly as well, but in a different league.
Audi has actually shown quite an improvement on reliablity over the years, and they were never the worst. And yes, the A3 is an awesome car and there is really nothing like it. But Audi has shown a better track record than other German makes and models with reliability.
Am I taking a gamble still compared to a Toyota Rav 4, definitely! The 2006 Accord has probably already been refined to near perfection as well. I'm trusting that even though the A3 is a first year car in the US, the fact that it isn't in the rest of the world will help.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Okay, you had a good dealership with your Honda, I never had that good experience with my Acura dealership. They were by far the worst buisness establishment I ever dealt with in my whole life. :mad:
A good dealer can make or break a persons buying experience I agree My local GM dealership back in Michigan, would repair my GM cars after warranty also. Unfortunatly we don't have those bend over backwards dealerships down here in West Texas. I am just saying that you could drive a Buick Lucerne, for instance and have no problems at all. I agree perhaps across the board their are on average better foreign dealerships with customer service than their is with the Big 3. OTOH their are a few goodens out their that care about the customers and some have even posted back luck with their toyota and Honda dealers on this site.
I'm sure you've read how I feel about CR. I take their survey findings with a "grain of salt" based on my experiences with friends that left them out on their desks as I shook my head. :confuse:
Future Saab 9-1: New A3 Fighter Rumored in the Pipeline Date posted: 04-27-2006
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Forget the rumors you've heard about a neo-Sonett.
Saab planners are focusing on a much more down-to-earth product: a compact sport hatchback aimed at the Audi A3 and known internally as the Saab 9-1.
Company executives already are talking about the vehicle. In an interview with the Swedish newspaper TT, Saab Managing Director Jan-Ake Jonsson said the car will be built at Saab's home plant in Trollhättan and will be built on the same platform as the next-generation Opel Astra.
The 9-1, which is due in early 2009, won't be the only vehicle off the new Delta platform. Saturn also is looking to Opel to provide it with a successor to the Ion in 2008. Sensitive to pressure by fans to keep their cars unique, Saab officials told Inside Line that any similarities between the Opel and Saab vehicles that shared platforms will be under the skin and that both would be very distinct vehicles.
Work on the 9-1 began in earnest last year when it became clear that there would be no direct Japanese replacement planned for the "Saabaru" 9-2X, which runs through 2007. Saab reportedly is doing styling studies on its future small car, which will likely adopt design cues from the recent Aero X concept.
The company also is working on Opel-based replacements for its big 9-5 for late 2009 and the midsize 9-3 for 2010, according to European suppliers.
What this means to you: Opel will be the common thread that ties Saab to Saturn in the future. How much similarity will we see? Only time will tell.
Well, look at how MSN rates the Neon 95 to 2000!!!! That alone is enough to discredit MSN in its entirety for me.
That Dodge Neon was one of the worst in a long line of bad models from the Big 3, granted, and I think you'll even agree to that.
I know of at least 3 other Neon owners besides myself that had similar experience, and if you read those trusty MSN reviews from actual people, it's almost as if every Neon owner had the exact same problems as I (early tranny death, early head gasket death, early AC death).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I feel the oppositte as you then. MSN doesn't require a subscription to post, and thus isn't baught and paid for by the imports manufactors like CR.
(My Opinion)
Rocky
How does an import buyer like me get a free subscription from all those extra subscriptions Honda and Toyota must order from CR? I'd love to get a free subscription, as I don't even have one. I simply like MSN's CR link for every auto on its website, and also get copied on key issues and the year end book by CR from my parents' subscription.
But CR has been accurate for years!! They've been saying Toyotas and HOndas have been reliablie for years!!!! and surely the American buying public must agree, because they keep rebuying the cars! I once read the Camry was the most rebought "back to back loyalty purchase" of any vehicle by its owners. My parents proved this true with their 95 and 2001 Camry purchases, both of which they are still driving today!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I like that Saab/GM is making an A3 competitor, but I thought the 9-2x was sort of a competitor, and the Saab 9-3 SportCombi is a definite competitor as I Looked at that model too.
I liked the car, though it had too many small buttons and cheap looking green light inside the cabin.
I crossed out the Volvo V50 and the Saab 93 SportCombi for the exact same reason, CR said both had pathetic reliability.
I won't buy a car CR says to avoid by noting terrible reliability.
Interestingly, the 9-5 from Saab and the S40 rate much better in CR. But I was looking for a 5 door hatch/wagon design, and the 9-5 is too much $$$.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This Honda/Toyota God thing has gotten way, way out of hand. The media doesn't help. Ever watch a show called Autoline Detroit? The host is very knowledgeable about the auto industry. He has guests from all aspects of the car industry along with all car companies. In a show about 3 weeks ago he did a quick clip on perception. It has been so beaten into our heads that anything Honda/Toyota do is pure gold. He posted some pretty indisputable FACTS about how GM and Ford are competing with Honda/Toyota and are doing a great job at it. Yet, the American public PERCEPTION is otherwise. GM/Ford build great cars/trucks/vans ect. Its perception that Ford/GM need to work on. Get out on the net there are plenty of peeved of Honda/Toyota owners to be found. Heck, go to Google and type in Honda problems.. you will be surprised on what you find...
Well, you have to do some research on buying "American" for one. I try to buy as much American goods/services as I can. As we continue to ship our wealth overseas at a fanatic pace, ever wonder whats at the end? Trade deficts are soaring.. Educate yourself, find out what this means to you, your children, grandchildren.. The economic future of our country.. Think longterm..
This Honda/Toyota God thing has gotten way, way out of hand. The media doesn't help. Ever watch a show called Autoline Detroit?
Isn't this Autoline Detroit show part of the media you condemn in the same paragraph that you wrote???
Anyway, a show with "Detroit" in the name is most likely very biased.
Best way to defeat perception is by creating a perception of quality. I think offering a 10year/100K warranty like Hyundai would help the Big 3 put their money where their mouth is!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
''Buying a Toyota is like buying Dreyers Grand Vanilla. You know the company has been around for ages, and will be around for ages to come, they won't be changing hands or disappearing any time soon, and the vanilla is a predictably rich creamy flavor. If you want more ice cream next week, next year, next decade, you know you will get that same rich creamy flavor, because they are CONSISTENT''
Toyota has been around for ages?!? If Toyota has been around for ages, then GM,Ford and Chrysler have been around forever. Your argument that Toyota has been around for a long time, so you know it will stay around, and be a good company, is a very bad argument, seeing as how all the domestic companies have been around for much longer than toyota or honda
''the "Iron Duke" later the "Tech 4" was a reliable engine. But it also had pushrods. That's another discussion too. You don't see any Asian cars with those either.''
Why do you harp on pushrods, is it because its ''old'' technology? Well let me educate you. This ''old'' technology produces more low end torque, and in a small 4 cylinder engine, thats an especially good thing. Plus the fact that the corvette, viper, and a bentley, yes, a bentley, use pushrod engines, yet i don't hear anyone complaining about these.
Actually, I consider jd a very reliable accurate source of info. its CR, which i know to be biased, for among other reasons, the fact that their info often contrasts w/ jd.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If the reviewer's job is to predict reliability, it is obligated to consider available data in reaching its conclusion. If a given powertrain has tended to be unreliable in other products, particularly those that have merely been badge engineered, there's no reason to ignore an established history.
Using your logic, a weatherman would be "biased" in favor of precipitation if he predicts rain when there are dark clouds, high humidity and a changing barometer. Predicting rain in such circumstances isn't a form of bias, it's a logical conclusion based upon facts in evidence.
It doesn't say a whole lot about GM products if you believe that the only way to judge them fairly is to ignore their track record. No reason to squander money on such goods when there are others that are more trustworthy.
I'm just saying, that this is the definition of unbiased, and they do not fit that definition, so they do not have the right to claim they are unbiased. And personally, I would like to know your ''bad'' experiances w/ GM vehicles, because I have only had good.
As we continue to ship our wealth overseas at a fanatic pace, ever wonder whats at the end? Trade deficts are soaring
This is a silly and wrongheaded belief. It is in fact GM and Ford which are shipping jobs overseas while the transplants create wealth and employment here. You have seen months of posts proving this yet you can still post this goofy statement? Why?
Solution to your problem: Decertify the unions at all the Big 3 and open the employment to anyone. The Big 3 will start building auto's here again. Leave it in place and all the auto jobs will move to the South which is OK too but it doesnt do much for the Midwest. That's the longterm outlook.
I'm just saying, that this is the definition of unbiased, and they do not fit that definition, so they do not have the right to claim they are unbiased.
I hate whipping out the dictionary, but "bias" is defined as:
>>>a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment
I don't see anything personal and unreasonable about looking at a wealth of survey data, combining that information with poor reviews and declining sales, and then concluding that the General might be suffering from a major reputation problem that is largely well deserved.
I don't own a GM product, I've seen too many poor survey results, heard too many horror stories and driven too many mediocre rental cars to buy anything other than a Corvette. When the customer data shows consistently strong and consistent results, and the company exhibits a genuine interest in building a quality product and backing it up, then I'll reconsider if I happen to like the driving experience. But until then, no thanks.
Socala, I know there is the other 1.5 as you call them.
I'm just saying that it's hard for me to understand how one wouldn't like to own a STS, Lucerne, STS-V, XLR, XLR-V, Sky, Soltice, Yukon Denali and XL Denali, Cadillac Escalade, ESV, EXT, Suburban, new 2007' GMC Sierra Denali, Z-71, Silverado SS, You said the Corvette already you would like to own, okay the SRX, Saab 9-5, 9-3 and convertible, ain't bad. I agree GM needs to keep getting better and hopefully in the next 3 or 4 years the transformation of building very nice cars will be complete.
Comments
Thanks,
Chintan Talati
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
Yes actually. The definition of unbiased from dictionary.com is as follows: Without bias or prejudice; impartial.
If they were truly unbiased they would look at each new model on its own, as if it were from a brand new car company, one with no history, and they would rate it from there. They would not use past experiences to guess how the vehicle will perform, because that is using prejudice.
And as everybody knows, all information you find on the internet is true.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And as everybody knows, all information you find on the internet is true.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If the reviewer's job is to predict reliability, it is obligated to consider available data in reaching its conclusion. If a given powertrain has tended to be unreliable in other products, particularly those that have merely been badge engineered, there's no reason to ignore an established history.
Using your logic, a weatherman would be "biased" in favor of precipitation if he predicts rain when there are dark clouds, high humidity and a changing barometer. Predicting rain in such circumstances isn't a form of bias, it's a logical conclusion based upon facts in evidence.
It doesn't say a whole lot about GM products if you believe that the only way to judge them fairly is to ignore their track record. No reason to squander money on such goods when there are others that are more trustworthy.
If you use true logic, a car's past record can not predict what the current or future quality level may be. Cars get better and worse. By today's standards, Toyota and Honda's quality was very poor at one time. What if nobody would have looked at the cars with a critical eye, and only judged by past quality? In that case, Toyota and Honda may never have never gained a foothold in the USA. Sometimes there is a "turning point" in quality, and savvy car people can recognize it. I am watching Detroit models carefully for signs of a strong commitment to quality. I see nothing significant right now.
-Loren
It's a difference in methodologies:
-Consumer Reports conducts a survey of car owners, in which owners are asked to report problems based on a list of categories (air conditioning, body integrity, engine, etc.) If the car exhibits a "serious" problem as defined by CR, the owner is supposed to check the right box. CR surveys the last several most recent model years.
-JD Power conducts both an Initial Quality Survey, surveying those who have owned their cars for 90 days, and a Vehicle Dependability Survey, studying cars that have been owned for three years. JD Power's survey pool is necessarily smaller, because it covers fewer years that would JD Power.
-Consumer Guide does not conduct a survey. Its guide rate reliability based upon TSB's (Technical Service Bulletins) reported by the automakers to the federal governments, as well as the opinion rendered by engineers that it hires to study the cars for expected reliability. It does NOT survey owners.
-MSN data comes from AIS, which serves the repair industry. It gets its data from feedback from mechanics ("AIS produces MSN Autos' Reliability Ratings by analyzing patterns displayed by thousands of repair requests the company receives from automotive technicians all across the country.") It does NOT survey owners.
So, summary of the above:
-CR gets its info from owners from several of the most recent model years. At any one time, it is gathering survey data about several of the most recent years of a given nameplate, i.e. a report in the current guide might cover the last several model years individually, i.e. 2000-2005.
-JD Power gets its dependability data only from three year old cars. So the 2006 VDS scores will come from 2003 cars; if things got worse in recent years, JD Power won't pick it up through the VDS category.
-Consumer Guide doesn't survey anyone. It uses government data that isn't fully comprehensive (not all problems end up as TSB's), and then attempts to offer advice based upon its own conclusions.
-MSN makes an estimate based upon mechanic's reports. It seems that AIS is running a help desk, so it is quite possible that routine problems that don't require technical assistance from AIS won't end up in the MSN rankings.
Looking at CR, the 2005 Lincoln LS gets a reliability ranking of much worse than average (lowest of five rankings.) In JD Power, the overall Initial Quality Score based upon that current model year is two stars out of five, which equates to being worse than average. Consumer Guide has no survey to report, and MSN's reliability data from AIS is for the 2003 model.
CR and JD Power are actually giving very similar scores to the 2005 model, they are only one tier apart. Once again, these two sources correlate.
Let's suppose you are hiring a new employee. Before you sit two candidates: Candidate A has a stellar reputation in your profession, with a verifiable track record of producing strong results. Candidate B has a verifiable record of being a screw-up in your same profession, with sloppy work skills and a high absentee rate.
Now, if you came to me and said, "Using 'true logic,' I've got to conclude that these two candidates are pretty much the same to me," I'm not sure whether I'd laugh at you or send you to the HR department for a final "meeting." The idea that you'd want to completely ignore one's track record in the name of logic would not make your judgment appear to be very sound.
There is no doubt a good 30 year track record is very desirable, but a good 4 or 5 year track record is even more important. Dwelling on past glories can make you miss out on a lot of good developments. You should ask "What have they done for me lately?"
Yes, but cars are designed, engineered, assembled and delivered by people. An error in one year is likely to carry over into the next if the bits used to put the car together are the same.
A change in management personell, management or design philosophy, or policy can make a bad car excellent or a good car rubbish overnight. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
You just said it -- it doesn't happen often. The same drivetrain that was a failure in one model year may very well be a failure during the next.
Consumer Reports has the right idea: If the nameplate has changed and the prior model was not good, they will deem it too new to predict. If the nameplate is a carryover from the prior year, they will predict based upon past results. That's a completely logical approach to take.
Honda and Toyota have spent years developing a track record of trust, dependability, and quality.
The big 3 appear to have a long term track record of only looking at the short term. Sure, they can make an extra few hundred bucks using cheap unreliable parts on each car sale, but in the long run, they've lost many customers doing exactly that, and now look at their current status!
I prefer doing business with companies that have a long track record of selling honest to goodness good cars.
Rocky
The point about reputation from past experience.... that goes out the window with a model change. Look at Avalon claiming a whole new designed (redesigned) Camry base. It's not the previous Avalon. Problems. Look at the 03 Honda. More problems than before, some small some biggies.
They made a change and the reputation didn't carry. Was it the Ridgeline that's an Odyssey? CR called it wonderful because it share a percentage of parts? LaCrosse based on Impala and earlier Regal base--don't know anything, can't predict. Amnesia like Hillary on their part for past record. .
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think you were actually referring to this president when he had amnesia about owning a lumber company. "Got some wood ?" :P
Rocky
But I'll have to save a lot of money for that, just in case they do have a lot of repair expenses. I'll start my savings from all of the money I save by buying reliable foreign import cars for the next 30 years.
What is the average amount spend on car repairs in the US per vehicle? I probably will spend half of that buying all imports. :P
I read people commenting about interiors. I have to laugh because my interiors are just fine; if I didn't like them I wouldn't have written the check from MM for them. I feel that cars and their interiors are compared to your previous cars. If you're used to a brand that's what you want other brands to be like re plastics, gauge layout, etc., or it doesn't feel right. I suspect there's as much psychological planning done on the layouts and feel to try to retain previous customers and force more retention in future as there is on the appearance of the car's front and rears. There was a 60 minutes story years ago about the psychologist who consults with manufacturers about each car's personality, i.e., its appearance. The fronts with headlights have face-like characteristics.
IOW if you like your Accord and want another one because you felt the thing paid its way for you, more power to you. Actually a lot of gray-haired folks around our region have bought them the last many years along with Camrys and seem very happy. They have a Buick reputation I would surmise. Now some of those Hyundai are showing up.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Honda and Toyota retail sales are increasing, while Buick retail sales are decreasing. The last thing that either Toyota or Honda would want is a "Buick reputation."
Rocky
Rocky
P.S. Oops I forgot about the ugly sciaon line-up. :lemon:
Repairs costs can be big time $$$$$$$. Especially if you'd like to see a car reach 200 or 300,000 miles. There are a lot of people that seem to be able to get their Honda's and Toyotas to 300K without much effort or cost.
CR reported that 1st year models and 1st year redesigns seem to have 20% more problems than even 2nd year cars. I have to agree with this finding since I bought a first year car myself.
My fiance's 2005 Civic (a stale design, but perfected and refined in everyway) is a work of art. It's sheer build quality is astounding. Zero defects, zero flaws to date after 16K miles. Yes, this Civic was built in Japan, and frankly, I think you can tell. I would say it was noticeable that her Civic was made in Japan, and that my Accord was either a first year model, suffered quality from being made in the USA, or suffered from 1st year blues by 16K.
I'm elated. I'm loving life not having to spend money on my car for a long time (as I paid it off a while back too). I guess that's why my money's burned a hole in my pocket and I want that new Audi A3 (need more utility/cargo space).
So... I guess I'm one of those Import owners that thinks Japanese cars are indeed far superior, but won't hide it when they have problems. I've reported the problems with my 03 Accord very extensively and honestly, and at one point in time I was very unhappy with the reliablity performance of my car, but after more time and miles, and with Honda's great service, I've grown to appreciate a highly reliable (but not perfect) car.
I'm definitely not in a group that would let HOnda/Toyota get away with lame defects by not reporting them.
For instance, I used to SWEAR by Sony TV's, as bullet proof and last forever TV's. But this year, my Big Screen Sony started to fail, and Sony would not pay for the labor and parts. (the warranty was 1 year, but the TV broke at the 2 year mark - almost exactly to the day) I asked Sony to step up, and they only stepped up partially (offered to pay for parts only) Since I had to pay for labor on a 2 year old TV, you can bet your last dollar my next TV will NOT be a Sony.
Until an import company fails me, you won't see me looking at the Big 3. I think a lot of buyers are in my shoes. Why give somebody else a chance again when the imports have never failed you????
If Honda/Toyota fail me, you won't see me buying them again.
As it stands, I'm trying German next (and I expect less than perfection, but still good reliability). If I don't get it, that'll be another company crossed off the list.
Rocky
Problems with a big FAT "S" at the end Rockylee!!!!
Again, my Accord has caused many warranty visits (mainly do to aesthetic/cosmetic flaws that required two visits each since dealers refuse to carry parts in stock in their inventory). All that being said, I've spend no money repairing my Honda since its warranty expired 20K miles ago.
I think I spent 2K on my Dodge by the time it hit 40K (so 2,000 dollars within 4,000 miles).
I've never EXACTLY counted what that Dodge cost to run to 65,000 miles, because I'm afraid to. I know its in the 5K-8K range, and I don't want to know exactly how much I screwed up. Comparing the problems my Honda had compared to what my Dodge had is like comparing IRAQ's military prowess to our own in the USA. It's simply incomparable, in dollars, in warranty visits, in time lost, in tows required, in every measurable respect.
3 problems that will never get a free pass if they occur before 100K:
1) Transmission failure (if manufacturer doesn't pay for repair)
2) Head Gasket failure
3) A/C failure
4) Engine failure (okay, thats one part that never went bad on the Dodge, but maybe those 3K interval oil changes were good for something!!!)
All the problems above are $1,000+ problems when you add up everything involved.
No one from Dodge ever stepped up to say... we'll help pay for repairs.
The most I ever got out of them from complaining a lot was a free battery (which wasn't much since a 1 or 2 year old battery was made useless prematurely due to car defects) and I still had to pay the labor for them to install it!
You know what's funny, I thought that Dodge was a decently good car when it RAN, when it wasn't in the shop, but those are huge "when's." It had good handling. It didn't get EPA mileage, not even close
I'm not sure what ya meant by this ?
I meant problems as in plural Rockylee (with the Dodge)
The Accords problems are microscopic compared to the problems I had with the Dodge. The Accords problems pale in comparison to the problems I had with the Dodge, get it?
I can count the problems with my HOnda on one hand.
I would have to write a 20 page dissertation on vehicle repair history just to cover the Dodge's history of defects.
I've explained before on one of these forums why I can generalize from Dodge to all of the big 3. There are a lot of reasons, and I don't want to go into all of them again, but here's one.
CR and other reliability indicators seem to group the Big 3 similarly. Honda and Toyota seemed to be grouped similarly as well, but in a different league.
Audi has actually shown quite an improvement on reliablity over the years, and they were never the worst. And yes, the A3 is an awesome car and there is really nothing like it. But Audi has shown a better track record than other German makes and models with reliability.
Am I taking a gamble still compared to a Toyota Rav 4, definitely! The 2006 Accord has probably already been refined to near perfection as well. I'm trusting that even though the A3 is a first year car in the US, the fact that it isn't in the rest of the world will help.
A good dealer can make or break a persons buying experience I agree
Rocky
Rocky
Date posted: 04-27-2006
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — Forget the rumors you've heard about a neo-Sonett.
Saab planners are focusing on a much more down-to-earth product: a compact sport hatchback aimed at the Audi A3 and known internally as the Saab 9-1.
Company executives already are talking about the vehicle. In an interview with the Swedish newspaper TT, Saab Managing Director Jan-Ake Jonsson said the car will be built at Saab's home plant in Trollhättan and will be built on the same platform as the next-generation Opel Astra.
The 9-1, which is due in early 2009, won't be the only vehicle off the new Delta platform. Saturn also is looking to Opel to provide it with a successor to the Ion in 2008. Sensitive to pressure by fans to keep their cars unique, Saab officials told Inside Line that any similarities between the Opel and Saab vehicles that shared platforms will be under the skin and that both would be very distinct vehicles.
Work on the 9-1 began in earnest last year when it became clear that there would be no direct Japanese replacement planned for the "Saabaru" 9-2X, which runs through 2007. Saab reportedly is doing styling studies on its future small car, which will likely adopt design cues from the recent Aero X concept.
The company also is working on Opel-based replacements for its big 9-5 for late 2009 and the midsize 9-3 for 2010, according to European suppliers.
What this means to you: Opel will be the common thread that ties Saab to Saturn in the future. How much similarity will we see? Only time will tell.
This is what you should really get andres3
Rocky
I don't trust any other source other than CR due to many reasons. They just don't seem to be as honest.
(My Opinion)
Rocky
That Dodge Neon was one of the worst in a long line of bad models from the Big 3, granted, and I think you'll even agree to that.
I know of at least 3 other Neon owners besides myself that had similar experience, and if you read those trusty MSN reviews from actual people, it's almost as if every Neon owner had the exact same problems as I (early tranny death, early head gasket death, early AC death).
(My Opinion)
Rocky
How does an import buyer like me get a free subscription from all those extra subscriptions Honda and Toyota must order from CR? I'd love to get a free subscription, as I don't even have one. I simply like MSN's CR link for every auto on its website, and also get copied on key issues and the year end book by CR from my parents' subscription.
But CR has been accurate for years!! They've been saying Toyotas and HOndas have been reliablie for years!!!! and surely the American buying public must agree, because they keep rebuying the cars! I once read the Camry was the most rebought "back to back loyalty purchase" of any vehicle by its owners. My parents proved this true with their 95 and 2001 Camry purchases, both of which they are still driving today!
I liked the car, though it had too many small buttons and cheap looking green light inside the cabin.
I crossed out the Volvo V50 and the Saab 93 SportCombi for the exact same reason, CR said both had pathetic reliability.
I won't buy a car CR says to avoid by noting terrible reliability.
Interestingly, the 9-5 from Saab and the S40 rate much better in CR. But I was looking for a 5 door hatch/wagon design, and the 9-5 is too much $$$.
Ever watch a show called Autoline Detroit? The host is very knowledgeable about the auto industry. He has guests from all aspects of the car industry along with all car companies. In a show about 3 weeks ago he did a quick clip on perception. It has been so beaten into our heads that anything Honda/Toyota do is pure gold. He posted some pretty indisputable FACTS about how GM and Ford are competing with Honda/Toyota and are doing a great job at it. Yet, the American public PERCEPTION is otherwise. GM/Ford build great cars/trucks/vans ect. Its perception that Ford/GM need to work on. Get out on the net there are plenty of peeved of Honda/Toyota owners to be found. Heck, go to Google and type in Honda problems.. you will be surprised on what you find...
I try to buy as much American goods/services as I can. As we continue to ship our wealth overseas at a fanatic pace, ever wonder whats at the end? Trade deficts are soaring.. Educate yourself, find out what this means to you, your children, grandchildren.. The economic future of our country.. Think longterm..
Ever watch a show called Autoline Detroit?
Isn't this Autoline Detroit show part of the media you condemn in the same paragraph that you wrote???
Anyway, a show with "Detroit" in the name is most likely very biased.
Best way to defeat perception is by creating a perception of quality. I think offering a 10year/100K warranty like Hyundai would help the Big 3 put their money where their mouth is!
Toyota has been around for ages?!? If Toyota has been around for ages, then GM,Ford and Chrysler have been around forever. Your argument that Toyota has been around for a long time, so you know it will stay around, and be a good company, is a very bad argument, seeing as how all the domestic companies have been around for much longer than toyota or honda
Why do you harp on pushrods, is it because its ''old'' technology? Well let me educate you. This ''old'' technology produces more low end torque, and in a small 4 cylinder engine, thats an especially good thing. Plus the fact that the corvette, viper, and a bentley, yes, a bentley, use pushrod engines, yet i don't hear anyone complaining about these.
Using your logic, a weatherman would be "biased" in favor of precipitation if he predicts rain when there are dark clouds, high humidity and a changing barometer. Predicting rain in such circumstances isn't a form of bias, it's a logical conclusion based upon facts in evidence.
It doesn't say a whole lot about GM products if you believe that the only way to judge them fairly is to ignore their track record. No reason to squander money on such goods when there are others that are more trustworthy.
I'm just saying, that this is the definition of unbiased, and they do not fit that definition, so they do not have the right to claim they are unbiased. And personally, I would like to know your ''bad'' experiances w/ GM vehicles, because I have only had good.
This is a silly and wrongheaded belief. It is in fact GM and Ford which are shipping jobs overseas while the transplants create wealth and employment here. You have seen months of posts proving this yet you can still post this goofy statement? Why?
Solution to your problem: Decertify the unions at all the Big 3 and open the employment to anyone. The Big 3 will start building auto's here again. Leave it in place and all the auto jobs will move to the South which is OK too but it doesnt do much for the Midwest. That's the longterm outlook.
I hate whipping out the dictionary, but "bias" is defined as:
>>>a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment
I don't see anything personal and unreasonable about looking at a wealth of survey data, combining that information with poor reviews and declining sales, and then concluding that the General might be suffering from a major reputation problem that is largely well deserved.
I don't own a GM product, I've seen too many poor survey results, heard too many horror stories and driven too many mediocre rental cars to buy anything other than a Corvette. When the customer data shows consistently strong and consistent results, and the company exhibits a genuine interest in building a quality product and backing it up, then I'll reconsider if I happen to like the driving experience. But until then, no thanks.
Rocky
P.S.
Do you like any vehicles coming out like the Aura, new CTS, Enclave, ?
Come now, Rocky, you know that there are another 1 1/2 domestic automakers out there.
I'm not entirely unforgiving. I've owned two Fords, and both of them were pretty bad, yet I'd still be willing to consider a couple of those.
I'm just saying that it's hard for me to understand how one wouldn't like to own a STS, Lucerne, STS-V, XLR,
XLR-V, Sky, Soltice, Yukon Denali and XL Denali, Cadillac Escalade, ESV, EXT, Suburban, new 2007' GMC Sierra Denali, Z-71, Silverado SS, You said the Corvette already you would like to own, okay the SRX, Saab 9-5, 9-3 and convertible, ain't bad.
How about The new Camaro, do you like it ?
Rocky