Honda Car Forum

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:13:40 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
> wrote:


> >I mean it sounds great they got 800,000 survey returns or whatever
>
> only 480,000


Really..... I'm speaking from memory here.




> Well, they might be getting 700 responses on the '99 Odyssey and 1200
> on the '99 Dodge minivans. That would mean about 25 reports of
> transmission problems with the Honda and 144 on the Dodge.


25 and 144 qualify as "large numbers"?



> You can't extrapolate from safety recalls and TSBs to reliability.


No, but you can consider them evidence of lack of engineering and/or
assembly excellence.



> >What about Hondas that bend their rear suspension in a front collision
> >because it can't handle just deceleration force of the rear tire/wheel?
> >Junk.
>
> I am skeptical that any repairable front collision would produce that
> effect on the rear suspension. In any event, it is a crash issue not
> a reliability issue.


I was shocked the first time I saw it and attributed it a previous event
such as backing into a curb. By the time I encountered it the second
time, it had been documented as a possiblity in non-Honda industry
material.

The cast extension on the engine block by the timing belt for the engine
mount on some Accord engines can break off in a collision too. Honda
engineered an moogie-foogie work around kit so the block doesn't have to
be replaced.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:44:05 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:13:40 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>

>
>> Well, they might be getting 700 responses on the '99 Odyssey and 1200
>> on the '99 Dodge minivans. That would mean about 25 reports of
>> transmission problems with the Honda and 144 on the Dodge.
>
>
>25 and 144 qualify as "large numbers"?

The n is 700 and 1200 which is a good sample size. The 25 and 144 are
the failure incidents. They don't have to be large, they only have to
be significantly different, which they certainly would be under the
circumstances I mentioned. If the n had been 7000 Odysseys and 150
Dodges with 25 and 144 corresponding defects, would you think you were
going out on a limb to say the Honda was better?

>> You can't extrapolate from safety recalls and TSBs to reliability.
>
>
>No, but you can consider them evidence of lack of engineering and/or
>assembly excellence.

They certainly indicate that a problem exists with a specific part.
Both could easily be due to a very rare failure.

>> >What about Hondas that bend their rear suspension in a front collision
>> >because it can't handle just deceleration force of the rear tire/wheel?
>> >Junk.
>>
>> I am skeptical that any repairable front collision would produce that
>> effect on the rear suspension. In any event, it is a crash issue not
>> a reliability issue.
>
>
>I was shocked the first time I saw it and attributed it a previous event
>such as backing into a curb. By the time I encountered it the second
>time, it had been documented as a possiblity in non-Honda industry
>material.
>
>The cast extension on the engine block by the timing belt for the engine
>mount on some Accord engines can break off in a collision too. Honda
>engineered an moogie-foogie work around kit so the block doesn't have to
>be replaced.

Not surprising that parts in the front end might break off in a
front-end collision. In any event, engineering is always a trade-off
and Honda puts a premium on light weight construction and passenger
protection in a collision. The down side might be higher repair costs
in the few vehicles that suffer such a failure in an otherwise
repairable collision. The fact that the vehicles provide hundreds of
thousands of miles of routine service without such a failure would
seem to indicate that the car is well engineered for its primary
purposes. There is no indication of a reliability issue with either
of these items.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:44:05 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

> >25 and 144 qualify as "large numbers"?
>
> The n is 700 and 1200 which is a good sample size. The 25 and 144 are
> the failure incidents. They don't have to be large, they only have to
> be significantly different, which they certainly would be under the
> circumstances I mentioned. If the n had been 7000 Odysseys and 150
> Dodges with 25 and 144 corresponding defects, would you think you were
> going out on a limb to say the Honda was better?


I'm not a statistician. I doubt many CR's conclusions because they
don't square with what I see real world. I don't admit you're right,
just that I don't have the skill to argue statistics with you.



> They certainly indicate that a problem exists with a specific part.
> Both could easily be due to a very rare failure.


Concerning the Nissan rust problem, it wasn't rare. Dealers had as much
work as they cared to schedule... many strung it out over a year.




> Not surprising that parts in the front end might break off in a
> front-end collision.


The engine block breaking with no impact? I've NEVER seen another car
do that.


> In any event, engineering is always a trade-off
> and Honda puts a premium on light weight construction and passenger
> protection in a collision.


They put the premium on light weight construction and passing the crash
tests, which is not the same as real world passenger protection. For a
time, Honda used a bolt in upper radiator support crossbar. Irrelevant
to the crash tests, but real relevant real world where a guy is standing
on his brakes and submarines the car ahead.


> The down side might be higher repair costs
> in the few vehicles that suffer such a failure in an otherwise
> repairable collision. The fact that the vehicles provide hundreds of
> thousands of miles of routine service without such a failure would
> seem to indicate that the car is well engineered for its primary
> purposes. There is no indication of a reliability issue with either
> of these items.


Really? Its my impression that the moogie foogie engine mount kit was
provided because the mounting extension cracked due to normal vibration
in high mileage cars. Y'know how those 4cyls shake.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:08:29 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:44:05 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >25 and 144 qualify as "large numbers"?
>>
>> The n is 700 and 1200 which is a good sample size. The 25 and 144 are
>> the failure incidents. They don't have to be large, they only have to
>> be significantly different, which they certainly would be under the
>> circumstances I mentioned. If the n had been 7000 Odysseys and 150
>> Dodges with 25 and 144 corresponding defects, would you think you were
>> going out on a limb to say the Honda was better?
>
>
>I'm not a statistician. I doubt many CR's conclusions because they
>don't square with what I see real world. I don't admit you're right,
>just that I don't have the skill to argue statistics with you.
>
>
>

Haven't seen you around for awhile. Welcome back.

What's the quote about statistics and liars?
Plus the entire problem of getting an "honest" base of statistics?
Funny thing, like usenet or American Idol or VH1 or Rush Limbaugh
voting. Though the sample size may be large it may be so skewed as to
be meaningless.

True random sampling is one of the key challenges in statistical
analysis. In the above example, the chances of the 50,000 (or
whatever) actually sold vs the 7000 who reported problems being
accurate is pretty good.

If 150,000 Dodges were sold and the sample of 150 were comprised only
of those who had problems and complained, well, that many defects is
less likely to be accurate.

Wondeful "science", eh?

Could you please explain this piece of automobile industry tech jargon to an
ignorant Brit?

"moogie-foogie"

:-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"brad9876" <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3EF5B2A5.3F91@yahoo.com...
................................
> Honda
> engineered an moogie-foogie work around kit
..............................

Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
> Could you please explain this piece of automobile industry tech jargon to an
> ignorant Brit?
>
> "moogie-foogie"


Ah, moogie foogie. Keep ear hustling us Yanks and you'll be shocked at
how far we've fallen since you cut us loose.

Moogie foogie has lots of different possible uses. People here in the
past have commented on Consumer Reports double self selected sample.
That means their conclusions qualify as moogie foogie numbers.

Moogie foogie repairs are usually done by jackleg mechanics. A jackleg
mechanic generally works from an extra deep 2.5 car garage behind his
house. The garage contains a compressor, jack stands, a floor jack,
medium size Snap On roll around tool chest (half empty... the rest of
the tools are scattered around in various places), a refrigerator
stocked with only beverages, a lawn chair with a pedestal ash tray next
to it, and two trash cans. One trash can has dirty rags, old car parts,
used up tubes of super blue, etc, in it. The other has the now empty
aluminum beverage containers previously kept in the refrigerator. Gotta
keep that aluminum seperate... recycles, y'know, and the money can be
used to buy more beverages.

No credit cards, no checks, cash only, no receipt provided.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 19:58:23 -0400, GT
<IGETTOOMUCHSPAMgarytalda@yahooDELETEUPPERCASE.com > wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:08:29 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:44:05 -0500, brad9876 <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >25 and 144 qualify as "large numbers"?
>>>
>>> The n is 700 and 1200 which is a good sample size. The 25 and 144 are
>>> the failure incidents. They don't have to be large, they only have to
>>> be significantly different, which they certainly would be under the
>>> circumstances I mentioned. If the n had been 7000 Odysseys and 150
>>> Dodges with 25 and 144 corresponding defects, would you think you were
>>> going out on a limb to say the Honda was better?
>>
>>
>>I'm not a statistician. I doubt many CR's conclusions because they
>>don't square with what I see real world. I don't admit you're right,
>>just that I don't have the skill to argue statistics with you.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Haven't seen you around for awhile. Welcome back.
>
>What's the quote about statistics and liars?
>Plus the entire problem of getting an "honest" base of statistics?
>Funny thing, like usenet or American Idol or VH1 or Rush Limbaugh
>voting. Though the sample size may be large it may be so skewed as to
>be meaningless.

There are two major weaknesses in your argument. First is that the
surveys of Rush Limbaugh listeners are invariably asking for opinions
on hot-button political issues. If they asked Limbaugh listeners
whether their transmissions had failed in the last 12 months, I don't
think the results would be that much different from the results for
Michael Moore fans.

Second, I don't think that CR readers are likely to be biased in any
particular direction. You may argue that they favor foreign cars. I
would point out that the ones rating American cars are the ones that
bought American cars. I doubt that many would buy an American car
just to give it a bad survey rating.

And this is the one "flaw" with any survey on car reliability. It is
inevitably biased in the sense that Ford owners rate Fords and Honda
owners rate Hondas. The best you can do is to seek objective answers
from all owners. Based on the consistency of the data, it seems like
CR is accomplishing this. If you think they are in love with HOndas,
consider that one year the highest failure rate for any system on any
car was on a Honda (Del Sol roof leaks). The owners weren't reluctant
to report that problem so why would they be reluctant to report any
other problem on a Honda?


>True random sampling is one of the key challenges in statistical
>analysis. In the above example, the chances of the 50,000 (or
>whatever) actually sold vs the 7000 who reported problems being
>accurate is pretty good.
>
>If 150,000 Dodges were sold and the sample of 150 were comprised only
>of those who had problems and complained, well, that many defects is
>less likely to be accurate.

Obviously, the accuracy would be less than if the number were higher,
but it still is a reasonable sample size. Certainly, if 144/150 have
a failure, it would be accurate enough to assert that the reliability
of that component is lousy. Likewise, if only 3 had a failure (and
the car were a few years old) it would be reasonable to declare it
very reliable. It is clear that the CR data does not suffer from much
noise when you note how much the reliability of a '97 Tahoe resembles
that of a '96 or even a '95 Tahoe. It is often easy to see where a
major design change occurred by noting the sudden change in repair
frequencies with some components getting better and others getting
worse.

>Wondeful "science", eh?

Like any science it is subject to verification. In this case, the
clear patterns that emerge from the data do a good job of self
verifying. (Unless you think CR is just making it up.)

Got the picture!

I'll try the expression out on my contacts during my next visit across The
Pond, later this year I hope. Will they understand it in the Boonies? If I
go I would be going to Salt Lake City, which is in the middle of nowhere
(though a local resident might dispute this, contending that the city is the
centre of everywhere/thing...).

;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"brad9876" <brad9876_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3EF7ACD2.26E2@yahoo.com...
> Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> >
> > Could you please explain this piece of automobile industry tech jargon
to an
> > ignorant Brit?
> >
> > "moogie-foogie"
>
>
> Ah, moogie foogie. Keep ear hustling us Yanks and you'll be shocked at
> how far we've fallen since you cut us loose.
>
> Moogie foogie has lots of different possible uses. People here in the
> past have commented on Consumer Reports double self selected sample.
> That means their conclusions qualify as moogie foogie numbers.
>
> Moogie foogie repairs are usually done by jackleg mechanics. A jackleg
> mechanic generally works from an extra deep 2.5 car garage behind his
> house. The garage contains a compressor, jack stands, a floor jack,
> medium size Snap On roll around tool chest (half empty... the rest of
> the tools are scattered around in various places), a refrigerator
> stocked with only beverages, a lawn chair with a pedestal ash tray next
> to it, and two trash cans. One trash can has dirty rags, old car parts,
> used up tubes of super blue, etc, in it. The other has the now empty
> aluminum beverage containers previously kept in the refrigerator. Gotta
> keep that aluminum seperate... recycles, y'know, and the money can be
> used to buy more beverages.
>
> No credit cards, no checks, cash only, no receipt provided.