Mike, I agree, that's why you should try a cost to own comparison on
edmonds.com. They compare on a 4 year basis, Maintenance, think repairs
before and after 90 days, more like about the time the warranty ends, Resale
Value (you know about that one Mike ), and yes original sale price and
regular maintenance. Try for example comparing Camry, Accord, Malibu, and
any other comparible domestics, and see what you come up with.

Most people don't own their only cars 90 days. I had a 92 Saturn SL2 that
rated high in JD Powers and it was a terrible car. Three brake jobs before
the warranty ran out (obviously my fault per the dealer). Used non-GM brakes
after the warranty and never replaced them again up to 73k miles. Alternator
died at 37k, dealer said can't help, rarely happens, parts guy said they
fail all the time, hmmmm. Rattles, loose trim parts, noisy engine, bad body
panels. Real quality car for the first 90 days, after that, well, downhill
from there. In the end, trade in value was horrible too. The folks at saturn
basically said too bad, so I say too bad when I don't consider them in the
future.

Can't say that for my 3 Toyotas and my wife's 2 Hondas.




"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:mYednWDi9ZU6VPTbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@ptd.net...
> The fact is most ALL of the vehicle manufacturers fall within the
> statistical average of 2%, which is the average number of faults for ALL
> manufactured products. Naturally one will be on top and one will be on
> the bottom in ANY list but a variation of .05% to 1% is in indeed
> meaningless.
>
> What the customers should be more concerned about is the total cost to
> drive the vehicle home, dealer service, shop rates for that service,
> insurance, and parts costs, not whose brand in on the grill.
>
> mike
>
> "Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.borke d.net...
>> The Autobeat http://snipr.com/1n8lb
>>
>> ..General Motors and Chrysler tumbled down the list in J.D. Power and
>> Associates' annual Initial Quality Study. The study measures problems
>> found in the first 90 days of ownership after interviewing 97,000
>> consumers.
>>
>> GM did poorly and a company spokesman argued that the survey doesn't
>> matter. All of GM's brands finished below the industry average, which
>> is 125 problems per 100 vehicles...
>>
>> The reason it doesn't matter, says the spokesman, is that the
>> difference between top performers and the middle of the pack is
>> statistically irrelevant. Toyota, which tied Jaguar for sixth with 112
>> problems per 100 vehicles, beat Chevy by just 17 problems per 100 cars.
>> He makes a point. Few consumers will notice 17 problems per 100
>> vehicles. The Power study, he told me, is becoming less and less
>> relevant because quality is reaching parity.
>>
>> There's some truth to that. But the argument naively misses a huge
>> point. While some brands like Mercedes moved way up the charts this
>> year and others, like Chrysler, tumbled way down, hot names like Honda
>> and Toyota are in the top 10 every year. Every year!
>>
>> Consumers love and trust those brands. And those companies have been
>> dining on Motown's market share for decades now. Sure, Detroit is
>> close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won't believe that Detroit
>> is as good as Honda and Toyota until they beat them and beat them
>> consistently in J.D. Power surveys, Consumer Reports studies, word-of-
>> mouth recommendations and just general buzz. I'm sorry, why should a
>> guy who's on his third Toyota or Honda buy a Chevy? Because the initial
>> quality is almost as good and the disparity is statistically minuscule?
>> There's a great sales pitch...
>> ==========
>> Rising Sun: http://snipr.com/eat_me_jarhead
>>
>
>