Mike Hunter wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:41511661-d7e2-4dfc-bea0-3f76c0ddc73e@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

> 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?

> 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.

But they don't. Popular Mechanics also surveys owners, and almost
always, at least 5% of them report a problem within the first year,
with 10% being more common.

> That is why they all offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce.

Warranties also protect manufacturers.

> Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home something with those odds
> makes little sense.

RR isn't known for high reliability, and neither are German luxury
brand autos.