Honda Car Forum

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:13:32 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:



>It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
>the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
>small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...

I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned.
What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
> the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
> small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...

Well stated. You see that all the time. CR will have a poll based on
thousands of responses to detailed surveys and someone will claim, 'well
obviously they're biased, I have that product and mine is fine.'

The survey isn't asking the subscriber their opinion of every vehicle,
they are gathering only the subscriber's personal experience with their
own vehicle.

One of my favorite CR issues is the one where they survey on cellular
providers in 20 or so metro areas. Their results consistently match the
results of every other survey by every other independent publication. Of
course you still have people extremely upset by the results, with the
same sort of thing, 'my sample of one, trumps their sample of 50,000.

In article <o8f7k41er0i7t46k10il0kcf9gmev2kran@4ax.com>,
edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
> >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
> >small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...

> I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned.
> What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions.

I do look at the UK versions findings - but wouldn't let them *decide* for
me on something like a car. Domestic appliances, yes.

IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like
those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is
simply another appliance.

--
*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <erP0l.9834$yr3.6272@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
> > the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
> > small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...

> Well stated. You see that all the time. CR will have a poll based on
> thousands of responses to detailed surveys and someone will claim, 'well
> obviously they're biased, I have that product and mine is fine.'

Yup. And can't be bothered to read the article fully where it explains
that perhaps 80% of all vehicles (on average) will be totally fault free.

> The survey isn't asking the subscriber their opinion of every vehicle,
> they are gathering only the subscriber's personal experience with their
> own vehicle.

Indeed. And of course for every person who hates their car and tries to
run it down there will be others who do the reverse.

> One of my favorite CR issues is the one where they survey on cellular
> providers in 20 or so metro areas. Their results consistently match the
> results of every other survey by every other independent publication. Of
> course you still have people extremely upset by the results, with the
> same sort of thing, 'my sample of one, trumps their sample of 50,000.

My findings too.

A few years ago Jaguar got a poor score on reliability by the UK CA based
on members survey results. And made a big fuss about it being too small a
sample to be accurate. But didn't comment (probably never even read) on
the bit where those same members liked their Jaguar very much and would
recommend it to a friend...

My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
simply doesn't happen with modern cars.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
> replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
> there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
> that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
> simply doesn't happen with modern cars.

For vehicles, Consumer Reports emphasizes reliability and safety. Yet
many of us have bought vehicles knowing full well that they are neither
the most reliable or the safest, but have other characteristics that we
value. Some are items that are extremely important to a small subset of
people.

I made a list a long time back of things that I needed to consider when
selecting a vehicle, and few are considered by Consumer Reports, but
they can be important considerations to some buyers.

Exterior
--------
1. 5 mph bumpers
2. Sufficient front and rear ground clearance for speed bumps, steep
driveways, dips, parking stones, etc.
3. Trunk with low liftover
4. No difficult trim that will make the car a pain to wax.
5. Hood springs instead of prop stick
6. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in trunk lid
7. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in rear bumper


Doors & Windows & Mirrors
-------------------------
1. All door windows fully framed OR PROVEN DESIGN FRAMELESS WINDOWS
2. Rear windows open on 2 door models.
3. Power mirrors (mechanical inside controls at a minimum).
4. Folding outside mirrors
5. No glass mount rear view mirror.
6. Power door locks, especially on minivans or wide vehicles
7. Drivers side sliding door on minivans


Audio
-----
1. Radio/Cassette has built in CD-Changer controller for
non-proprietary CD changer.
2. CD changer that mounts under seat rather than in trunk
3. Standard radio antenna (non-windshield, non-power)


Interior
--------
1. High quality supportive seats
2. Easy entry/exit for 6' person
3. Rear seat headroom enough for 5 10" person.
4. Passenger hand grips above all doors (except driver's)
5. Usable cup holders
6. Multiple Cup holders (4 minimum).
7. Remote fuel door release.
8. Rear cargo cover for SUVs


Safety
------
1. Side air bags
2. Rear headrests
3. Minimum of 4 star rating for both passenger and driver.
4. Steel safety cage or equivalent body strength
5. Good overall rating from IIHS.
6. Traction control.
7. No daytime running lights, or easily defeatable DRLs.
8. Head curtain air bags


Engine/Transmission
-------------------
1. Oil filter accessible from top (or otherwise easily accessible)
2. 0-60 in <12 seconds
3. Able to climb I-80 up to Donner Pass at 60MPH minimum (or similar
test depending on your area).
4. Minimum of 7500 miles between REQUIRED oil changes
5. Long engine and power train warranty (5 year 60K minimum)
6. Non-interference engine (yeah, I know this is getting hard to find)
7. Sealed coolant recovery system (very rare except on European cars)
8. Selectable shift points
9. Cruise control maintains speed on uphill (unlike my Honda CR-V)
10. Front accessible engine
11. Engine has a history of reliability (i.e. no history of oil burning,
sludge, cracked heads, timing chain failures, etc.).


Brakes & Wheels
---------------
1. Wheels can accept tire chains or cables (S type okay)
2. High quality brakes with thick rotors
3. Spare tire does not mount on rear door
4. ABS
5. Tire size is 'super-standard' not uncommon (expensive) size
6. Full size spare


Exhaust
-------
1. Long or lifetime warranty on exhaust system
2. Stainless steel exhaust system


Body
----
1. Galvanized steel body


NVH
---
1. Low engine noise, wind noise, and road noise


Fuel Economy
------------
1. 30mpg or higher fuel economy for a car, 20MPG for a minivan, 25MPG
for a mini SUV, 18 MPG for a full size SUV.
2. 300 mile minimum range


Accessories
-----------
1. Ability to mount a trailer hitch, even if just for a bike rack
2. Accepts Thule or Yakima rack with loading up to the limit you need
(varies based on what you want to carry, i.e. skis, canoes, bicycles,
lumber, cargo box, etc.)
3. Sufficient towing capacity for your needs (needs vary of course)
4. Roof rack mounting without load bearing on roof (i.e. structural
steel rain gutters).
5. EASY mounting system for baby seats, sides and middle
6. Extra cigarette lighter outlets
7. Cigarette lighter socket not in ashtray, and/or auxiliary sockets
8. Provision for fog lights if not standard
9. Pre-wired for alarm


Insurance
---------
1. Low to moderate insurance cost
2. Low theft rate


Dealer Specific
---------------
1. No pinstriping
2. No dealer logos (removeable if present)
3. Dealer not wash car before delivery since they often do it poorly
and scratch the paint.

Comments4u wrote:
> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown
> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing.
> In its petition, Consumers Reports cites the costs of massive restructuring
> due to circumstances totally beyond its control. Consumers Reports claims
> that since it doesn't take advertising, it is the only unbiased source of
> product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that
> must be preserved.

Have a look at consumerdistorts.com for the rest of the story.

Another good source of reliability/breakdown info would be the major
motoring organisations and I have never understood why the British ones
don't publish whereas the German ADAC does (or did).

Maybe the UK RAC/AA are too scared of the car makers...?...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:500d14dbfcdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <o8f7k41er0i7t46k10il0kcf9gmev2kran@4ax.com>,
> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
>> >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
>> >small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...
>
>> I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned.
>> What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions.
>
> I do look at the UK versions findings - but wouldn't let them *decide* for
> me on something like a car. Domestic appliances, yes.
>
> IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like
> those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is
> simply another appliance.
>
> --
> *Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?
>
> Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:58:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:


>My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
>replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
>there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
>that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
>simply doesn't happen with modern cars.


Right. All Consumers Reports is doing is trying to maintain an
illusion that there is relevance to inaccurately measuring the
insignificant.

In article <pfb8k45d85d4hrp9br17kbu1oblsv4j7fi@4ax.com>,
edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
> >replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
> >there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
> >that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
> >simply doesn't happen with modern cars.


> Right. All Consumers Reports is doing is trying to maintain an
> illusion that there is relevance to inaccurately measuring the
> insignificant.

You've not understood the previous posts, have you? ;-)

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:49:07 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <o8f7k41er0i7t46k10il0kcf9gmev2kran@4ax.com>,
> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
>> >the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
>> >small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...
>
>> I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned.
>> What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions.
>
>I do look at the UK versions findings - but wouldn't let them *decide* for
>me on something like a car. Domestic appliances, yes.
>
>IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like
>those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is
>simply another appliance.

That isn't true in the case of CR. Their chief engineer is definitely
a car guy who was hanging around test tracks long before he was old
enough to drive. If he tests a sports car and it isn't fun to drive,
it is going to bomb big time. If it is a minivan test, that is a
different matter.