Honda Car Forum

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL

It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it.

>
>mike
>
>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100 vehicles.
>>
>> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles have
>> at 17 problems, on average.
>>
>> > 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's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per
>> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me.
>
>> Jeff
>

Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K
on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all
three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said,
todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the
maintenance

mike

"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:136m3spb5lhvm0a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
>> problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not
>> keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends,
>> some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the
>> proper preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more.
>>
>> I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where
>> purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they
>> all look and run just fine.
>>
>> Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what
>> corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to
>> acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the
>> reason why I no longer buy imports
>>
>> mike
>
> For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case,
> it would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My
> three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going
> to a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a
> year thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything
> or not" kind of thing.

(M)y Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only the starter, the
water pump,
> timing belt and brake pads have been replaced.
>

It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL


"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com...
>
>
> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
>>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not
>>keep
>>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of
>>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper
>>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more.
>>
>>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where
>>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they
>>all
>>look and run just fine.
>>
>>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what
>>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to
>>acquire,
>>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why
>>I
>>no longer buy imports
>>
>>mike
>>
>>
>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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 is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all
>>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven
>>> 300,000 miles?
>>>
>>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in
>>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale
>>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for
>>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage,
>>> it makes a difference.
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation
>>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars
>>> are best for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo.b orked.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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

I never said 125 problems per 100 vehicles was 2%. Who ever did, does not
understand how to figure statistical averages. LOL


"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
newstom631076iu6vmjp4k7hstul5c39i0irl@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:39:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>>It is quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL
>
> It is obviously beyond you as well since you can't explain it.
>
>>
>>mike
>>
>>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:5skai.84$1o.52@trnddc01...
>>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That is why the best vehicle, a Lincoln, had 37 problems per 100
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> I guess 98% of the vehicles have no problems, but 2% of the vehicles
>>> have
>>> at 17 problems, on average.
>>>
>>> > 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's meaningless is your 2% statistic. The average was 125 problem per
>>> 100 vehicles. How that works to 2% is beyound me.
>>
>>> Jeff
>>

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah. LOL

IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a
number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that.






>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com.. .
>>
>>
>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:09:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
>>>problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not
>>>keep
>>>my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends, some of
>>>whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper
>>>preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more.
>>>
>>>I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where
>>>purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they
>>>all
>>>look and run just fine.
>>>
>>>Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what
>>>corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to
>>>acquire,
>>>insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the reason why
>>>I
>>>no longer buy imports
>>>
>>>mike
>>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:67ll63dfqav9uea2poc1qcdhglg0qj9f91@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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 is meaningless is your 2% number. 2% of what? 2% of all
>>>> transmissions fail every day? 2% of cars will need a repair if driven
>>>> 300,000 miles?
>>>>
>>>> If you keep cars for two years (like you do) and have connections in
>>>> the industry and/or enough money that you don't care about resale
>>>> value, then it may not matter. For people who want to drive a car for
>>>> 5 - 10 years and don't want to be making monthly trips to the garage,
>>>> it makes a difference.
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>> Economical car ownership is most dependent on avoiding depreciation
>>>> costs and finance charges. High-quality, durable and reliable cars
>>>> are best for this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rising Sun" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:6cfe4cac44b46f92eb10fc79aedaea4a@pseudo. borked.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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you
can't see it LOL

mike

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah.
>>LOL
>
> IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a
> number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that.
>
>
>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com. ..
>>>
>>>
>>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean?
>>>
\

On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly 300K
> on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all
> three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said,
> todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the
> maintenance
>
> mike
>

Sure Mike.
Domestics are great.
That's why their market share keeps declining.

I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying.
Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes
you the only one.
My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while
still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel
pump, too.

None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as
costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to
go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:17:23 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>It is there for all to read. in the various survey reports. Apparently you
>can't see it LOL
>
>mike

IOW, it is just a number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for
confirming that.

>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ht1p63d3vucdvethi6328vmfl7k15h75pl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:19:47 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It is what left after one subtracts 98% from 100%, Blah, Blah, Blah.
>>>LOL
>>
>> IOW, it has nothing to do with automotive reliability, it is just a
>> number you pulled out of your ass. Thanks for confirming that.
>>
>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eqom63dtrt522nsugs99pqst79h6vvhdeh@4ax.com ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Blah Blah Blah. What does 2% mean?
>>>>
>\
>

I think you're lying.

mike

"ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181524584.705775.93480@p77g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jun 10, 6:16 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> Really? My '64 domestic has 165K on the Clock and my, '71 has nearly
>> 300K
>> on the clock. My '83 domestic only has around 100K on the clock, but all
>> three still have their original starters and water pumps. Like I said,
>> todays cars are even better, 200k should be a cake walk if one does the
>> maintenance
>>
>> mike
>>
>
> Sure Mike.
> Domestics are great.
> That's why their market share keeps declining.
>
> I've owned cars since the '60s and think you're lying.
> Never replaced a starter? After 40 years of car ownership? That makes
> you the only one.
> My '83 domestic required a water pump replacement under warranty while
> still running the factory coolant. Warranty covered the faulty fuel
> pump, too.
>
> None of my Honda or Toyota cars required as much repair or were as
> costly to maintain as my domestics. Why do you think GM was forced to
> go with a 100K mile powertrain warranty?
>

On Jun 9, 4:37 pm, "mack" <macke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4uqdnfU6JORKcffbnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@ptd.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Can't prove it by me. Of all the cars I have owned, only two were
> > problematic over time, a '51 Chevy and a '97 Lexus. Although I do not
> > keep my cars ten years most of them have gone to relatives and friends,
> > some of whom keep then even longer than ten years. If one does the proper
> > preventive maintenance any brand today will run to 200K or more.
>
> > I also own a '41, '64, '71, and a '83 domestics. All but the '41, where
> > purchased new and currently have from 100K to 300K on the clock and they
> > all look and run just fine.
>
> > Since I was in the fleet service business I have learned to do what
> > corporate fleet mangers do. I look at the total cost over time to
> > acquire, insure, maintain, repair and replace my vehicles. That is the
> > reason why I no longer buy imports
>
> > mike
>
> For you so say that, the '97 Lexus must have been a lemon. In my case, it
> would take a really good deal to get me back into a Big Three car. My
> three Toyotas (and my daughter's Matrix) have made me realize that going to
> a repair shop with a problem is not necessarily a two-or-three times a year
> thing, it can become an "every two years, whether it needs anything or not"
> kind of thing.
> Now and then, I read the used car ads for amusement, and continually see 3
> or 4 year old Cads which the owner states "85K miles, new transmission" and
> such ads for other American iron.
> I still like my American car, built in Georgetown, KY with the badge
> "Avalon" on it. ...And my Japanese Camry, now pushing 138K miles where only
> the starter, the water pump, timing belt and brake pads have been replaced.
> And the transmission is still smooth as silk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm really not trying to start a fight here, or even try to be smart.
I've owned 14 GM products over the past 30 years and have been
satisfied with all of them;of course, some more than others. Some
vehicles I have kept for many many years, others, I sold or traded
after a couple of years. One thing has been constant in ALL of the GM
cars I have owned is this: I have NEVER owned a GM car that I have had
to get rid of because it was mechanically unsound or unreliable. And
if I had to replace a starter, water pump,AND timing belt after only
138000 miles, I would probably not continuing to own GM products!