That does not change the fact that what CR is showing as a 'list' of which
is above or below average is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles
are falling within the standard statistical methodology of the 2% failure
rate for ALL manufactured products over an identical time period.

In any event one chances of getting one of the 98% that are trouble free is
far greater than ones chances of getting one of any particular manufactures
vehicles that is within the 2% failure rate. That is why they all offer a
warranty, even Rolls Royce. Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home
something with those odds makes little sense. You are for more likely to
get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2%
regardless of the name on the hood.


"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:41511661-d7e2-4dfc-bea0-3f76c0ddc73e@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently
>> using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply
>> state
>> the PERCENTAGE of failure rate that is actually what the current ratings
>> are
>> reflecting?
>
> CR does show the percentages of failures, but you have to look at the
> very beginning of their tables to see them.
>
>> Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up and
>> no
>> longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is
>> actually
>> showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard
>> statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured
>> products
>>
>
> But all cars don't fall within that range, and the differences in
> reliability increase with age:
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/...71d9a42f_o.jpg
>
> How do you explain that?
>
>
>