Honda Car Forum

Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It
can not be stated accurately as a 'list.'


"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:72b201f1-4031-4404-b4f0-9ae5961c3c68@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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
>

Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before spouting
off and looking stupid?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ity-faq_ov.htm

Mike Hunter wrote:

> 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. That is why they all offer a
warranty, even Rolls Royce. Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home
something with those odds makes little sense. You are for more likely to
get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2%
regardless of the name on the hood.


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

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:36:09 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:


>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
>

Well, yea, they can say that the chance of failure is twice as high
for one vehicle as another, but its twice something that's near zero
anyway. So what's the likely effect on me? One repair every 10
years? Every 20 years? One in my lifetime?

Major manufacturers are close enough in quality I just buy what I like
and what I need.

top-posting troll Mike Hunter wrote:

>Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It
>can not be stated accurately as a 'list.'

Learn how to quote and post, and then DON'T get back to us, "Mike",
you top-posting idiot.

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.

"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:72b201f1-4031-4404-b4f0-9ae5961c3c68@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 3:36 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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
>

> Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before
> spouting
> off and looking stupid?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ity-faq_ov.htm

I have read it and I still believe the little circle over emphasize
small differences, that may not be statistically valid. In the
discussion they talk about the average circle representing a failure
rate of 2.5% (not an actual value, but their example). Do you think
that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough so that you can cut
things that fine (the difference between average and excellent is 2.5%
and there is "very good in between)? And then consider that the sample
is not a random sample. People choose to participate. And the only
people who have that choice are Consumer Reports readers. So the
people who respond are opinionated, motivated people who like Consumer
Reports. Don't you suppose they are likely to be biased towards
agreeing with CR's editorial opinions?

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote
> "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote
>> Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis
>> before spouting
>> off and looking stupid?
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ity-faq_ov.htm
>
> I have read it and I still believe the little circle over
> emphasize small differences, that may not be statistically
> valid. In the discussion they talk about the average
> circle representing a failure rate of 2.5% (not an actual
> value, but their example).

In what part did you see this mention of 2.5 percent? I see
it only in section 4.2, and it says nothing like what you
say.

> Do you think that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough

This is the minimum required sample size. If you read the
site linked above, it notes that 200-400 cars per model year
is usual.

I disagree with other points you are making.

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4Ru0l.4052$%z5.3924@newsfe09.iad...
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote
>> "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote
>>> Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis
>>> before spouting
>>> off and looking stupid?
>>
>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ity-faq_ov.htm
>>
>> I have read it and I still believe the little circle over
>> emphasize small differences, that may not be statistically
>> valid. In the discussion they talk about the average
>> circle representing a failure rate of 2.5% (not an actual
>> value, but their example).
>
> In what part did you see this mention of 2.5 percent? I see
> it only in section 4.2, and it says nothing like what you
> say.

Yes, section 4.2. I expressed myself poorly. In the CR example of what
happens with small problem rates they use the 2.5% average failure
rate as an example (which is why I said "not an actual value, but
their example"). Although 2.5% might not be an actual average failure
rate, I think the information from other sources (like JD Power)
indicates that the average failure rate for new cars is very low,
definitely in that range. So assuming that the average failure rate is
very low, around 3% Consumer Reports slices the difference between a
3% failure rate a 0% failure rate into three categories (Excellent,
Very Good, Average). Given small sample sizes (as small as 100
responses), do you really believe the potential error rate for the
survey results support such fine divisions? I'd GUESS that the error
rate is probably on the order of +/- 5% for many of the vehicle with
smaller sample sizes (and by smaller , I mean in the several 100's of
responses). I think not. This is why I think CR's method over
emphasizes small, statistically insignificant differences in vehicles.

>> Do you think that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough
>
> This is the minimum required sample size. If you read the
> site linked above, it notes that 200-400 cars per model year
> is usual.

And this is still a very small sample size when you are talking about
very small actual differences in failure rates.

> I disagree with other points you are making.

Which points are those? Do you think that I am wrong when I refer to
the people who respond to the CR surveys as "opinionated, motivated
people who like Consumer
Reports?" It seems to me this is given. The only question is whether
this group is typical of all car buyers. I think not. Do you think
they would be likely to strongly disagree with CR's editorial
opinions? I am sure some do (people like me), but I think most then to
be somewhat biased towards agreeing with CR.

Ed

On Dec 11, 7:24*pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> 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.
>

What you state is not true. At least not in our universe.

> 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. * *That is why they all offer a
> warranty, even Rolls Royce. * *Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home
> something with those odds makes little sense. * You are for more likelyto
> get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2%
> regardless of the name on the hood. * *
>

So your claim is that there are no differences between makes in terms
of reliability? That's so far-fetched, I doubt even you believe it.

> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> wrote in messagenews:41511661-d7e2-4dfc-bea0-3f76c0ddc73e@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Mike Hunter wrote:
>
> >> 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 upand
> >> 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?
>
>