Honda Car Forum

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
>

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.

> 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.

Including the cost of taking those cars, with average 1.25 problems per
car, back to the dealer.

Jeff

> 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
>>
>
>

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:27:00 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:

>
> "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 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.


Valid point. It is - after all - the total time behind the wheel that
matters.

Oh, and Mike - *PLEASE* stop top posting. It is very annoying.


--
k
www.perfectreign.com

making the impossible happen
ahead of schedule

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
>>
>
>

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.bork ed.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 quite obvious that it is beyound you LOL

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

You are entitle to your own opinion but I know that since I switched from
buying
Toyota / Lexus vehicles to domestics I have saved thousand of dollars every
time I buy another new car and I have been saving hundreds of dollars
annually on the maintenance costs at the dealerships.

mike

"Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
news:466a0fbc$0$19508$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 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.
>
>
> "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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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.bor ked.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
>>>
>>

"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.
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.

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.bo rked.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
>>>>
>>>
>