Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[Woochifer]

Look, until anyone can post me statistical provable facts that any of these is reliably superior to the others to such a degree it would make a notable difference that would interest me. Otherwise it doesn't mean a whole lot.

The reliability issues noted on this board in the past have typically been with specific production runs. The reviews are a good source for flagging potential problems with certain models. A handful of failed units should be expected, but if you start seeing reviews detailing out one failed unit after another, that points more to a pattern than just typical random bad luck. Some manufacturers have had more bad production runs than others. Sony and h/k have had several problematic runs with very high failure rates over the past decade. Sony's problems with their DE and DB series models got to the point that my friend in AV sales quit demoing the Sonys and steered his customers to the Denons and Yamahas as much as possible. Two years ago, Marantz's x200 models had early production problems with the power supplies. Onkyo also had at least a couple of models with reliability problems in the mid-90s.

But hey people buy American cars for some reason - it sure has nothing to do with reliability.

Yeah, and people buy European cars for some reason as well, even though their reliability now ranks at the bottom.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-reports_x.htm

[RGA]

The reliability issues noted on this board in the past have typically been with specific production runs. The reviews are a good source for flagging potential problems with certain models. A handful of failed units should be expected, but if you start seeing reviews detailing out one failed unit after another, that points more to a pattern than just typical random bad luck. Some manufacturers have had more bad production runs than others. Sony and h/k have had several problematic runs with very high failure rates over the past decade. Sony's problems with their DE and DB series models got to the point that my friend in AV sales quit demoing the Sonys and steered his customers to the Denons and Yamahas as much as possible. Two years ago, Marantz's x200 models had early production problems with the power supplies. Onkyo also had at least a couple of models with reliability problems in the mid-90s.


Yeah, and people buy European cars for some reason as well, even though their reliability now ranks at the bottom.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-reports_x.htm

Well I still only hear hearsay no facts about the audio equipment.

As for cars - I may be out of date with my info but "All Mercedes, Audi, Jaguar and Land Rover" did poorly.

Now I though American car companies owned all of these except Mercedes which owns Chrysler. So Chrysler doing better than Mercedes is odd since they're one and the same company.

Consumer reports...Yes I bought my 1994 Grand Am because Consumer Reports said it was more reliable than most every car in its class - I should have read the Lemon Aid as it was rubbished...Consumer Reports LATER had it as the lemon it was and still is.

The Focus has an awful record in Lemon Aid and good one in Consumer reports...ahh stats from polls...and did I read correctly that we're believing the manufacturers and what they claim is a break down? 20 to 18 even if that is correct is negligable and probably rooted out with a larger poll...like all the people who don't subscribe to consumer reports. Far less people own German cars so I would like to see the actual break down...Ie;the sample size for European cars would be FAR smaller than that of the American cars.

Buyers have figured it out over ten years since Toyota has finally surpassed GM. Though the Americans have figured it out with all the numerous co-productions. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe(same car same plant - slightly alrtered body and interior) have gotten good reviews...perhaps mixing the Japanese know-how with the American styling I have said would be best for both entities.

Now if only Ford could somehow stop having their tires blow up because THEY can't design wheels and if they can stop their cars from blowing up on rear impact - Crown Victoria police cars - they might sit better with me. I mean they've been making them long enough and been sued enough time and they STILL have the exact same problems. Jaguar is owned by Ford...and the Jag is a POS. Blaming Europe? Now that I don't get...That's like Disney blaming Euro Disney for making no money...when it was stupid decsion by American owners not to investigate what their market was first.

I have heard various problems with Marantz here as well...one dealer dumped Marantz for repair and lousy customer service in the 1980s brought in Sony and Yammie and they sucked dumped them - then you see a decade later they bring them back and give em another try - Now they carry 3 or even 4 of those major players. Seems to me like it's a cycle - bad runs very possible. Denon marantz is funny because hey they don't care which you buy the moeny goes to the same pot. Sorta like the GM of receivers. I mean they brought out Saturn as a way to distance themselves from themselves - gee hopefully people won't think we're GM. Didn't work but it made a lot of sense.

[kexodusc]

Well I still only hear hearsay no facts about the audio equipment.

As for cars - I may be out of date with my info but "All Mercedes, Audi, Jaguar and Land Rover" did poorly.

Now I though American car companies owned all of these except Mercedes which owns Chrysler. So Chrysler doing better than Mercedes is odd since they're one and the same company.

Consumer reports...Yes I bought my 1994 Grand Am because Consumer Reports said it was more reliable than most every car in its class - I should have read the Lemon Aid as it was rubbished...Consumer Reports LATER had it as the lemon it was and still is.

The Focus has an awful record in Lemon Aid and good one in Consumer reports...ahh stats from polls...and did I read correctly that we're believing the manufacturers and what they claim is a break down? 20 to 18 even if that is correct is negligable and probably rooted out with a larger poll...like all the people who don't subscribe to consumer reports. Far less people own German cars so I would like to see the actual break down...Ie;the sample size for European cars would be FAR smaller than that of the American cars.

Buyers have figured it out over ten years since Toyota has finally surpassed GM. Though the Americans have figured it out with all the numerous co-productions. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe(same car same plant - slightly alrtered body and interior) have gotten good reviews...perhaps mixing the Japanese know-how with the American styling I have said would be best for both entities.

Now if only Ford could somehow stop having their tires blow up because THEY can't design wheels and if they can stop their cars from blowing up on rear impact - Crown Victoria police cars - they might sit better with me. I mean they've been making them long enough and been sued enough time and they STILL have the exact same problems. Jaguar is owned by Ford...and the Jag is a POS. Blaming Europe? Now that I don't get...That's like Disney blaming Euro Disney for making no money...when it was stupid decsion by American owners not to investigate what their market was first.

I have heard various problems with Marantz here as well...one dealer dumped Marantz for repair and lousy customer service in the 1980s brought in Sony and Yammie and they sucked dumped them - then you see a decade later they bring them back and give em another try - Now they carry 3 or even 4 of those major players. Seems to me like it's a cycle - bad runs very possible. Denon marantz is funny because hey they don't care which you buy the moeny goes to the same pot. Sorta like the GM of receivers. I mean they brought out Saturn as a way to distance themselves from themselves - gee hopefully people won't think we're GM. Didn't work but it made a lot of sense.

What in the blue hell were you trying to say?
I've read it several times, most of it doesn't make any sense.

Incidentally, I work for Honda. If you think Japanese vehicles are built better, well, you don't realize that over 90% of our parts are found in our competitors vehicles as well. Cars aren't designed or built my the "manufacturers" anymore, they're assembled. By our own research, US manufactured vehicles hit the service department 2-3 times per 150 visits more than Japanese vehicles, hardly significant. Needless to say were concentrating on value, style, and performance now. Not sure how this made an audio forum, but whatever.
For what it's worth, I trust my Marantz and Yammie way more than a comparably priced Kenwood or Pioneer.

[RGA]

This is my point though at least there are SOME actual numbers for cars. the fact that they're not specific numbers is no help.

If I had a BMW I might bring it in for something totally anal where as with the Cavelier it may be that the transmission fell out --both count as a customer complaint both count as a service -- yet it is obvious which one is a bigger POS. Performance requires more work that is not oging to stop someone from owning a Bugatti...even if it's in the shop every 300km of driving.

I was pointing out that the so called European cars that supposedly suck worse than American cars are OWNED by American companies. BMW and Volkswagen were not mentioned in the article and Mercedes has had issues for over a decade --The Lemon Aid supports Consumer Reports on that count. However the first three years of the Ford Focus the lemon Aid thinks is if not the worst car on the road it's right down there. The American owned Consumer Reports does not seem to indicate that.

The problem is that Consumer Reports is polling subscribers. If they poll 700,000 people maybe 10,000 of them own a European car. The stats finding would have a much smaller sampling of Euro cars and the results far leass meaningfull. Any basic stats course covers this and naturally the American owned newspeaper with American interests lie by omission and readers are too ignorant to find out all of the numbers. And before Woochifer gets on my case by saying I pulled 10,000 out my ass surely even he knows that the big three outsell all of the Euro cars combined by a huge margin WITHIN the the US market. Either way if they don't provide a BREAKDOWN of the numbers it's meaningless.

The Lemon Aid guide typically breaks down the major problems of vehicls rated against the competitors not just from polls by people who buy their books.

There are some good American cars...generally the ones designed or co-produced with the Japanese. In 1996 used car guide there was exactly TWO GM vehicles that were recommended. One was the Chevy Sprint(built by Suzuki) and the Camaro because though it ell apart a lot offered a lot of performance for the money.

The 94 Grand Am I had had 4 or 6 pages JUST to help you fix the rattles. After it was in the shop 6 times in 18 months and talking to the GM repairman I got a few inside scoops on the pracitces of the company starting with a deliberate design to aid in alternator failures and some of the worst computer chips ever built by anyone. If a Beretta's chip fail you're looking at $1800.00Cdn...without the car doesn't run. Same chip in several cars but he referred to the Beretta.

And this V6 grand am could not do the Coquihalla nearly as well as the 4 banger Honda Civic could despite less horsepower and two fewer cylinders. This road is a large multi lane freeway heading to the British Columbia interior on a steep grade. Both were automatics. The Honda had some kind of grade logic allowing it to stay in a lower gear allowing it to make it up hills without losing power. The Grand Am far better off the line but on a grade would shift up at given speeds and on a grade would fall back.

I say better off the line but if you floor it it will steer left into on coming trafic and the whole front end seems to lift off the ground losing road grip. It is not recommended you run more than two power options on a grand am either or the alternator and or electrical system could blow - it did on mine.

You are correct parts are mixed and matched. For instance Genera Motors put out a terrific top grade battery (Delco) - it was rated in the top three I forget the other two. My 96 Civic and friends 94 civic had that Delco battery. The Grand Am however had some no name. Though I was impressed because when my Alternator blew after 3 months I was able to drive all the way home on the battery which was about 3 miles. So at least the batterry held out.

It may sound like I'm basing it all off my own experience but not so though mine has been horrible. I mean the Grand Am"
estimates
18,000KM Spark Plugs (Headlight burn out)
20,000KM brake pads replacement front
25,000KM Power windows (Headlight Burn out)
25,000KM Paint peeling on roof
27,000KM Power door locks
35,000KM Break Pads front replacement wheel bearings re-done - passener seat no longer locking on rollers - rear seat rattling failing to lock in place, rattle all windows, rattle air vents
37,000KM Alternator blown - tires need replacing
40,000KM Power windows fail, cruse control no longer works, air conditioner no longer cold - but kinda works so they won't repair it.
45,000KM - it is discovered that thje rear breaks have never engaged properly on the car because they were put on backward or some such drivel at the plant - this explains high break wear at least
47,000KM Power door locks fail(Can't get into the car...have to crawl through passenger window with tow truck guy helping, emergency break no longer works, rear window defroster fails
53,000KM front break pads gone yet again, anti-lock breaking engages with every break, muffler needs replacing -
Decide time to cut losses before I get into accident and tust that GM has properly designed the seatbelts and or Airbag....judjing by safety ratings it's a death trap so trade in get Honda Civic. GM 54,000km sold.

Honda Civic to 89,000KM

1000KM front light condensation built up - looked kinda ugly.

20,000km emergency break handle glue not sticking so - hard to push the button. Still worked just awkward. Fixed in 20 minutes.

89,000KM sold car 30% left on original break pads.

Buying exteneded warranty:
on GM $2000.00 for a one year 20,000km power train - didn't buy it.

On Honda 2 year bumper to bumper warranty $400.00Cdn to make it a 5 year bumper to bumper. $400.00 more for & year bumper t bumper...not offered on the GM at all.

I should have known then but we learn from our mistakes. The New GM still has that atrocious trunk and the same cheap seats and plastic interiopr with the same drive train...GARBAGE. And it's the high end Cavelier...uggh - Just like Bose ---advertise it to death and if you advertise it they will come.

[kexodusc]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up RGA. A few comments:
I definitely agree with you about the Lemon Aid and Consumer reports. Truth is, they're a very helpful form of free advertising for my company, though they exaggerate Honda's (and I dare say Toyota's) quality track records terribly.
I have no doubt that the Japanese manufacturers actually build a more durable vehicle. However, in my job I come across numerous studies, some internal some public which evaluat the "total cost of ownership" of our vehicles versus our competitors.
There's a few ways to do this, but basically it involves average sale price, and cost of repairs traditionally over a 6 year period (though sometimes you'll see a less meaningful 3 year period). There is a cost factor calculated for the customer's time and frustration that progressively rises as the initial vehicle cost goes up. In these studies, you'll find that GM in particular does quite well. I should give credit to Chrysler, too, they're quality initiative has been something else to watch since 1998 and if you've been following, they've been the manufacturer that's improved their warranties the most. I don't have anything nice to say about Ford, but I own a Mustang that's been cursed, so I'm biased.
Funny you should bring up Cavaliers. They are the leader in their class when referring to "total cost of ownership". I belive the newer Grand Am's finished quite high as well.
Part of the reason is many students and young people purchase them as cheap first cars, and can afford an extra hour or two a year for maintenance.
One final comment, our marketing research still shows that quality is lower on the priority list for most North Americans than other features. In the US, vehicle turnover is about 5 years for the typical family. Warranty's and powertrain coverage generally provide enough coverage. The North American public still feels that US made vehicles offer more performance, better design, and more features at a lower cost at the expense of quality. This may or may not be true as it is quite subjective, but it should help explain to you why people buy American. Honda in has been paying a lot of money to place their products in Hollywood movies and music videos to improve it's image (ahem...the Fast and the Furious). If Bose did this in the audio world they'd be chastised.

[Woochifer]

This is my point though at least there are SOME actual numbers for cars. the fact that they're not specific numbers is no help.

If I had a BMW I might bring it in for something totally anal where as with the Cavelier it may be that the transmission fell out --both count as a customer complaint both count as a service -- yet it is obvious which one is a bigger POS. Performance requires more work that is not oging to stop someone from owning a Bugatti...even if it's in the shop every 300km of driving.

You obviously have very limited understanding of statistical principles. The scenario that you point out is nothing but a hypothetical conjured more out of your imagination than reality. Your opinion over which one is a bigger POS is also just that, unsubstantiated opinion.

I was pointing out that the so called European cars that supposedly suck worse than American cars are OWNED by American companies. BMW and Volkswagen were not mentioned in the article and Mercedes has had issues for over a decade --The Lemon Aid supports Consumer Reports on that count. However the first three years of the Ford Focus the lemon Aid thinks is if not the worst car on the road it's right down there. The American owned Consumer Reports does not seem to indicate that.

Oh, don't let facts spoil a good conspiracy story. BMW WAS mentioned in the linked article (the problems with the 7 series have been reported elsewhere as well), and Volkswagen's reliability problems the past four or so years are well documented in the Consumer Reports auto issue and in the pages of various business magazines that have been predicting that VW's reliability problems might shortcircuit their comeback (and last year, their sales dropped by 12 percent, well above the industrywide decline). And contrary to what you might think, the Ford Focus was on Consumer Reports' list of cars to avoid for the first three years. But, with improved reliability on the newer models, last year they put the Focus on their recommended cars list, because other than the early reliability problems, the Focus was their top rated compact car. And what does Consumer Reports' American ownership have to do with anything? If they had some kind of bias, why would Japanese cars consistently rank highly on their lists?

The problem is that Consumer Reports is polling subscribers. If they poll 700,000 people maybe 10,000 of them own a European car. The stats finding would have a much smaller sampling of Euro cars and the results far leass meaningfull. Any basic stats course covers this and naturally the American owned newspeaper with American interests lie by omission and readers are too ignorant to find out all of the numbers. And before Woochifer gets on my case by saying I pulled 10,000 out my ass surely even he knows that the big three outsell all of the Euro cars combined by a huge margin WITHIN the the US market. Either way if they don't provide a BREAKDOWN of the numbers it's meaningless.

That's a load of horses**t and either you know it and are distorting facts to make an argument, or you truly are clueless about survey research and statistical sampling procedures. First off, you ARE pulling a number out of your ass, so why put it out there in the first place if you just conjured it up with zero factual basis? FYI, the actual market share of European nameplates is about seven percent, and it's not that hard to look that kind of stuff up. (translated that would equate to a sample of about 47,000)

And even if the actual sample figure was 10,000, how is that statistically insignificant? Just because it's lower than the sample for American cars does not mean that the conclusions are compromised. Check your statistics textbook sometime (that is if you've ever read one) and look up the sample size needed for 90, 95, and 98 percent confidence intervals -- it's not that big if your sample is sufficiently random. And just in case you never bothered to actually go through the reliability charts, you might be interested in finding that any model that truly does not have a large enough data sample does not get reported in Consumer Reports' reliability data (just look for where it says "Insufficient Data"). Not knowing the distribution of responses is a nonissue if CU is using a consistently high confidence interval in the sampling. For you to say that Consumer Reports is lying and their readers are ignorant is hypocritical because your post demonstrates far more untruth and ignorance than anything that Consumer Reports has said about auto reliability.

If the CU sample is so insufficient, name me another survey that has a sample size of more than 675,000 respondents if you're so fixated on a higher sampling rate. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the U.S. Consumer Price Index based on a survey of 7,500 households. Obviously, the statisticians at the BLS (who are among the best in the field) don't have a problem with that sample size, and the way that those numbers get parsed and cross-tabulated (by income group, by region, by household size, by race/ethnicity, etc.) is much more extensive than what CU does with the automobile reliability ratings.

Have you ever actually done survey research? I can tell you from experience with consumer surveys that the substantive differences drawn from a 1,000 household random sample versus a 10,000 household random sample are basically nonexistent; and even the difference between 100 and 1,000 responses is not that great.

And your little inneuendo about Consumer Reports subscribers and their evil American bias is pretty laughable. As I mentioned earlier, unless Consumer Reports subscribers are buying their cars from a different network of dealers or the cars are manufactured in different plants from the general population, then your objection means absolutely nothing. And a basic statistics class would be more than enough to get an introduction to error analysis and bias suppression. Oh, and BTW, the last time I checked, the cars being surveyed are the ones that are actually sold in America! Of course, that means that an American non-profit organization is the worst possible source to conduct such a study. Gosh, maybe we should call in an African or South American magazine to do an more unbiased or statistically significant survey.

The 94 Grand Am I had had 4 or 6 pages JUST to help you fix the rattles. After it was in the shop 6 times in 18 months and talking to the GM repairman I got a few inside scoops on the pracitces of the company starting with a deliberate design to aid in alternator failures and some of the worst computer chips ever built by anyone. If a Beretta's chip fail you're looking at $1800.00Cdn...without the car doesn't run. Same chip in several cars but he referred to the Beretta.

Hmmm, a survey sample of 675,000 is too small and questionable to draw conclusions from, yet your survey of ONE car IS conclusive! I'm sure your stats professor is proud of you.

[RGA]

Lemon Aid

"Out of 100 vehicles, we're apt to build 10 that are as good as any that Toyota has ever built, 80 that are okay and 10 that cause repeated problems for our customers." Robert Lutz, President Chrysler U.S. Chrysler Times, 17 July 1995

That's right Robert, and that's why Lemon Aid warns buyers to steer clear of that last ten percent and even reconsider that 80 percent you qualify as "okay." It's hard to believe I've been writing Lemon-Aid guides for almost 27 years. Imagine, when the first guides were written, Volkswagen had a monopoly on cold, slow, and unsold Beetles and minivans, Ford was selling biodegradable pickups (and denying it had a J-67 secret warranty to cover rust repairs), and a good, three-year-old used car could be found for less than $2,000.

The Lemon-Aid Used Car Guide is unlike any other auto book on the market. Its main objective, to inform and protect consumers in an industry known for its dishonesty and exaggerated claims, remains unchanged. However, this guide also focuses on secret warranties and confidential service bulletins that automakers swear don't exist. That's why you'll be interested in the "Index of Key Documents" section of the book. There you'll find the exact bulletin, memo, or news clipping reproduced from the original so neither the dealer nor automaker can weasel out of its obligations.

The Lemon-Aid guide's information is culled mostly from U. S. and Canadian sources and is gathered throughout the year from owner complaints, whistle blowers, lawsuits, and judgments, as well as from confidential manufacturer service bulletins.

Lemon-Aid does more than complain and explain. It targets abusive auto industry practices and lobbies automakers for changes. For example, two years ago Lemon-Aid blew the whistle on Chrysler's failure-prone automatic transmissions, brakes, and paint. Following Lemon-Aid's downgrading of Chrysler's products, company officials met with the author and set up a Warranty Review Committee to pay claims previously rejected.

Hit by a similar downgrading, Ford officials met with me on January 13th of this year and began giving refunds to Taurus, Sable, and Windstar owners with 3.8L V6 engine and automatic transmission claims even after their warranty had expired or they had been refused a refund in the past (see Part Two, "Invest in Protest").

This year's guide takes on GM's Saturn division for its factory-related powertrain and body deficiencies.

Lemon-Aid is really four books in one: a year-round SERVICE MANUAL showing diagnostic shortcuts and listing upgraded parts numbers, a GUIDE to over two decades of lemons and cherries, an ARCHIVE of internal service bulletins and memos granting free repairs and a LEGAL PRIMER to get your money back.

Safety defects get resolved through websites as well

Debra and Edward Goldgehn's 1985 Ford Ranger caught fire and burned completely. The couple's suspicions that it was a factory-related defect were later confirmed by a TV show that reported a series of similar Ford fires. The couple created their own web site called "Flaming Fords" and began amassing an incredible database containing reports of similar fires, class action lawsuits, expert witnesses, and actions taken in other countries. (For example, Ford had already recalled a number of its vehicles in order to fix the problem in Canada.) Shortly thereafter, Ford USA recalled 8.7 million cars and trucks, representing the largest recall ever announced by a single auto manufacturer. Ford says that the Internet pressure (the site has now been taken down) was coincidental and not a factor in its decision to recall the vehicles in the States.

Right, and Elvis is building Fords in Oakville.

Ratings may contradict Consumer Reports or auto club ratings due to the weight given owner complaints and internal service bulletins.

Why the Ford downgrade? Simple. Abysmally poor quality and Scrooke-like warranty assistance.

Focus, Taurus, Sable and Windstar owners may be angry that their vehicles have been downgraded to Not Recommended in this year's guides, while some of Chrysler's models, faced with similar on-going failures, are given an Average or better rating.

BAD BUYS

Cadillac: Allante, Catera, Cimarron, and all other front-drives (show-off cars for the nouveau riche and nouveau dumb)

Chrysler: Horizon, minivans (up to 1997), Neon, Omni (engine, brake, and automatic transmission failures; paint delamination)

Chrysler: Cirrus and Stratus (engine, automatic transmission, and AC failures)

Chrysler: Concorde, Intrepid, LHS, New Yorker, Vision (automatic transmission, brakes and AC failures; body leaks)

Daewoo: all models and years (coming out of bankruptcy; newly acquired by GM)

Ford: Focus, Taurus, Tempo, Topaz, Sable, Windstar (electrical glitches, engine, transmission, and brake failures)

GM Saturn: all models and years (engine failures, electrical glitches, and poor body fit and finish)

Hyundai: Excel, Pony, early Sonatas, Stellar (biodegradable bodies, serious engine, transmission, electrical, brake and fuel system failures)

Jaguar: all models and years (lots of cash for pseudo-cachet from Ford; mediocre quality and problematic servicing)

Kia: Sportage (a poorly performing sport-utility with an uncertain future)

Lincoln: Continental front-drive (engine, transmission, AC and brake failures)

Mazda: MPV (pre-2002 model was a gutless runt)

Saab: (electrical failures, problematic servicing, and quirky).

VW: Rabbit and EuroVan (mediocre quality control an Problems getting parts and service; Camper is ideal for waiting for a tow from Hans or Helmut)


GOOD BUYS

Audi: A4 and A6 (no more sudden acceleration unless you're talking about sales)

Chrysler: Colt, Summit, Stealth (three of the best cars Chrysler never built)

Ford: Escort, Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis (a Mazda spinoff and rear drive reliability)

GM: Caprice, Camaro, Cavalier, Firebird, Roadmaster, Sunbird, Sunfire (dependable rear drives and well-equipped, inexpensive front-drive small cars)

Honda: Accord, Civic, Odyssey after '98 (reliable and slow to depreciate)

Hyundai: Elantra, Tiburon (fairly reliable and inexpensive)

Infiniti: all models and years, except for the G20 (a better-performing Maxima)

Lexus: all models and years (your father's Oldsmobile, if he were Japanese)

Lincoln: Rear-drive Continental and Town Car (best American luxury cars)

Mazda: 626, 929, Miata, Protege (reasonably-priced and almost as reliable as the Honda, Toyota competition)

Mercedes: 300 series (expensive, but you get your money back at trade-in time)

Nissan: Axxess, Maxima, Sentra (reliable and reasonably priced)

Subaru: Legacy and Forester (4X4 is what makes them special; reliability is in the Mazda, Nissan, class, almost as good as Toyota and Honda)

Toyota: Avalon, Camry, Solara, Sienna (Camry redux)

Recommended
Honda CR-V (2002)
Lexus LX 450, LX 470 (1998-2002)
Lexus RX 300 (2001-02)
Nissan Xterra (2001-02)
Subaru Forester (2001-02)
Toyota 4Runner (1996-2002)
Toyota Highlander (2001-02)
Toyota RAV4 (2001-02)
Toyota Sequoia (2001-02)


Not Recommended
DaimlerChrysler Jeep Cherokee, Grand Cherokee (1985-94)
DaimlerChrysler Jeep Liberty (2002)
Ford Explorer, Mountaineer (1991-2001)
General Motors Avalanche (2002)
General Motors TrailBlazer, Envoy, Bravada (2002)
General Motors Blazer, Envoy, Jimmy (1983-94)
General Motors Cadillac Escalade (1999-2002)
General Motors Suburban, Yukon XL (1985-94)
General Motors Tahoe, Yukon (1985-89)
Isuzu Axiom (2002)
Suzuki XL-7 (2002)
http://www.lemonaidcars.com/ford.htm http://www.lemonaidcars.com/chrysler.htm

Government Investigates Ford Focus
Posted 06/06/02 4:50 p.m. CDT

By Nedra Pickler
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Safety officials have opened two new investigations into the Ford Focus , this time amid complaints the engine can suddenly stall and the front suspension can collapse.
The government has begun six investigations into the popular subcompact this year. Tim Hurd, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Thursday he cannot recall the government’s ever having as many investigations into one vehicle at the same time.

Seventy-two people told NHTSA that the Focus stalled while they were driving, including seven who crashed. Seven people reported the front suspension control arm fractured while they were driving, which led to six crashes.

The investigation into engine stall involves 574,700 cars from the 2000 and 2001 model years, the first two years of production. The suspension investigation also includes the 2002 model year.

The Focus is the country’s fifth-best-selling car, trailing only the Honda Accord , Toyota Camry, Ford Taurus and Honda Civic. But it has been plagued with safety problems, already having been recalled eight times for problems ranging from faulty seat latches and windshield wipers to a throttle that can stick open.

Two of NHTSA’s other open investigations involve possible airbag malfunctions, while the remaining were prompted by reports the rear wheel bearings could fail and the engine could catch fire.

NHTSA investigators said the alleged engine stall problem may be caused by debris accumulating in the gas tank, blocking fuel from being delivered to the engine.

NHTSA also is stepping up its investigation into nearly half a million General Motors vehicles after 28 crashes were blamed on a possible steering problem. More than 1,200 people have complained that the steering rack and pinion suddenly locked up while they were driving.

The investigation involves the 1998 Oldsmobile Intrigue and 1997 models of the Pontiac Grand Prix, Pontiac Tran Sport, Chevrolet Venture, Chevrolet Malibu, Oldsmobile Silhouette and Oldsmobile Cutlass.

The problem can cause the driver to lose steering control. GM reported six crashes in which eight people were hurt, but no injuries or deaths were reported in the other 22 crashes.

NHTSA opens any investigation with a preliminary inquiry, in which the agency and the manufacturer exchange paperwork. The Focus investigations are at this stage.

The agency can upgrade the case to an engineering analysis if it wants to examine the vehicle in detail for a possible safety defect. The GM investigation is in this stage.

NHTSA’s investigations can lead to a recall, but many are dropped.

Spokesmen for Ford and General Motors would not comment on the investigations except to say the companies are cooperating with the agency.

NHTSA also opened a preliminary investigation into about 75,000 Toyota T100 pickups from the 1993 – 1998 model years. Fourteen people have complained to the agency that the clutch pedal mounting bracket or the firewall where it attaches will fracture while driving.

The problem would stop the clutch from disengaging when the pedal is pressed and could cause the vehicle to move unintentionally, the engine to stall or stopping distances to increase.

Ford shares declined 20 cents to close Thursday at $16.75 on the New York Stock Exchange, while GM shares lost 89 cents to close at $58.20.



NHTSA Gambles With Focus Owners' Lives; No Recall Is Bad Law and Bad Safety

Ford Allowed to Replace Defective Fuel Pump After Dangerous Stalling


In an unprecedented decision that is both bad law and bad safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closed a defect investigation into 573,585 2000-02 Ford Focus for stalling due to defective fuel delivery modules ("fuel pumps") by permitting Ford to replace the fuel pumps after they fail. During its investigation NHTSA found "the Focus will stall at all speeds without notice." (EA02-022 Opening Resume.) Even when NHTSA closed past investigations with "service campaigns," the campaigns involved the manufacturer replacing the defective part prior to failure.

Center for Auto Safety (CAS) Executive Director Clarence Ditlow criticized NHTSA for ignoring its own successful litigation record on stalling and over a hundred previous stalling recalls and being less able than private lawyers in standing up to Ford: Mr. Ditlow said:

NHTSA’s decision to gamble with Focus owners’ lives is bad law and bad safety. In the 1970's, NHTSA won two cases, United States v. General Motors Corp., 417 F.Supp 933 (D.D.C.), 565 F.2d 754 (1977) and United States v. Ford Motor Co., 453 F.Supp 1240 (D.D.C. 1978) where two US District Courts held vehicles stopped on the roadway or even on the roadside were safety defects. NHTSA has conducted over 100 safety recalls for stalling. By caving in to Ford, NHTSA admits that its lawyers are either less capable or more politically bound than class action attorneys who can win trials on stalling as a safety defect as in Howard v. Ford Motor Co., No. 763785-2, Alameda County, Calif. Super Ct.(Oct. 11, 2000). There Judge Ballachey held "stalling, under almost any circumstances, presents an unreasonable risk to automobile safety and to the safety of the occupants of any such vehicle. It would defy common sense and the weight of the evidence to find otherwise." (Id. At 12.)

In a letter today, the Center asked NHTSA to reopen the investigation and order a safety recall to prevent deadly stalls in the Ford Focus from happening by replacing the fuel pump before it fails rather than gambling with consumers’ lives by replacing the fuel pump after it fails.

Ford insists cars safe, but cops keep dying
Fatalities from rear-crash fires are higher than government toll
DETROIT FREE PRESS
December 8, 2003
By Jennifer Dixon
Free Press Staff Writer

First of two parts

Sheriff's Deputy Matthew Dominick barely had time to react last October when he saw a car hurtling toward his parked Crown Victoria on a roadside in Boone County, Iowa. He jumped to another lane, just as the Chevy Malibu slammed into the rear of his 2003 Crown Vic, ripping open its 19-gallon steel gas tank and igniting a fuel-fed fire that engulfed the patrol car in seconds. Ammunition and bags of confiscated fireworks began firing in the trunk, forcing emergency workersto take cover in a ditch. No one was hurt. But afterward, Sheriff Ron Fehr found himself asking a question that has dogged Ford Motor Co. for years: Does the most popular police car in America have a fatal flaw?

A Free Press investigation found that more people have died in fiery rear-impact crashes in the Crown Victoria and two similar sedans than federal regulators revealed when they cleared the vehicles and their rear-mounted gas tanks of any manufacturing defects last year.

The regulators, focusing mainly on police cases, counted 16 fatalities in rear-impact fires in cars built between 1992 and 2001. But the Free Press documented 30 deaths during that span and a total of 69 in the last two decades, including at least 18 officers. Ford insists the Crown Vic is safe and meets all federal standards, a view shared by regulators. Ford also says the car has a comparable record to other big sedans in fatal fires resulting from all types of crashes.

But the story of the Crown Vic Police Interceptor is about more than statistics. It is a story of how police agencies and their mechanics sought for three years to convince Ford to end the roadside infernos, while the toll of victims continued to grow. It is also an inside look at an automaker's struggle to persuade police that the cars were not inherently flawed -- and that no vehicle could withstand the kinds of crashes that were killing cops.

Throughout 2000 and 2001, as Ford was mired in a corporate crisis brought on by fatal rollover accidents involving its popular Explorer, the world's No. 2 automaker kept assuring police and their mechanics that they had nothing to fear with the Crown Vic. Ford met with police and political officials, offering up bar charts and brochures to allay their concerns.

But as the deaths increased, and as autopsy reports showed that many of the officers would have survived if not for the fires, Ford reversed course. The company agreed to begin outfitting the police cars with safety shields to protect the gas tanks. Mechanics at some police departments had begun doing the same thing on their own a year before.

When the new shields failed to quell lingering fears, the company took an extraordinary next step. It decided to offer fire suppression systems in the 2005 model of its police interceptors, the kinds of systems typically found in armored personnel carriers. The automaker says it was simply making a safe car safer.

Ford officials emphasize that no design can eliminate all risk in high-impact crashes. The company also says fatality figures are meaningless in isolation.

"I think the focus of saying, 'Here's a list of people who have died in a Crown Vic' takes away the view of, 'Are these frequent accidents? Are these rare accidents?' " said Sue Cischke, Ford vice president for environmental and safety engineering. "These are very rare accidents occurring under very high-speed, high-energy impacts. To use a word like death toll makes it sound like it's an epidemic, and I just think that's the wrong way of looking at it."

The reality is that rear-end crashes are rare. And police tend to be at greater risk than civilians of being in rear-impact crashes because they're often in harm's way while stopped at crash scenes and on roadsides.

Even so, some police and consumer advocates remain critical of Ford's response.

"Some people are being killed who didn't need to be," said Patricia Werhane, a professor of business ethics at the University of Virginia and DePaul University in Chicago, who has studied the Ford Pinto. The small car came under scrutiny in the 1970s for rear-end fires that killed at least 26 people. Werhane said the Crown Vic, with its gas tank behind the rear axle, should have been reengineered by now. It is built on a platform, or basic mechanical structure, launched in 1979.

Industry experts said most passenger cars built today have gas tanks forward of the rear suspension because it's considered a more protected location.

In the Iowa deputy's case, Dominick's car had been outfitted with Ford's new safety shields. But the Crown Vic still burst into flames, leaving him and his boss with doubts about whether the gas tank can ever be fixed. "It makes you wonder," the sheriff said. "It didn't help."

Lt. Greg Abbott of the Cobb County Police Department in suburban Atlanta, who narrowly escaped death in a Crown Vic hit from behind in 2002, is convinced something is wrong: "In a rear-impact accident, the Crown Vic is just a firebomb waiting to happen."

Police deaths in the car mount
It was 1998 when Lt. James Wells Jr. of the Florida Highway Patrol first suspected something was wrong. Two Florida highway patrol officers had been involved in similar rear-end crashes with fire. In 1997, Trooper Robert Smith was killed when a driver hit his Crown Vic from behind, setting his car ablaze. A year later, Trooper Marisa Sanders was severely injured when her Chevrolet Caprice patrol car was hit, leaking gas that caught fire as she stood outside the vehicle. Two late-night accidents. Two drunken drivers. Two different police cars. Too many coincidences for Wells.

Wells, who runs the patrol's equipment, compliance and testing office, began to investigate. He looked at all known deaths by fire in rear-ended police cars and determined that the Crown Vic and the Caprice were catching fire at about the same rate. But General Motors Corp.had stopped making the Caprice in 1996, leaving the market for police cars largely to Ford. So Wells decided to take a harder look at the Crown Vic and its gas tank, sandwiched between the rear axle and the forward trunk wall.

After investigating for more than seven months, Wells reported his findings to Col. Charles Hall, director of the Florida Highway Patrol, on July 26, 1999. That same Monday, as Hall met with his staff to discuss Wells' report, another Florida cop died.

Madison County Sheriff's Deputy Steven Agner was driving less than 5 miles an hour as part of a construction crew in north Florida when a Florida State University student, talking on her cell phone, came cruising along I-10. At about 70 m.p.h., her Chevrolet pickup plowed into Agner's 1999 Crown Vic patrol car. The Crown Vic caught fire immediately. Agner was trapped inside with a broken collarbone. The autopsy showed he burned to death.

The next day, Wells inspected the gas tank of Agner's car and found that it had been cut by the arm that holds the shock absorber on the right side of the rear axle. He added the details to his report. A week later, on Aug. 3, the Highway Patrol shipped Wells' report to Ford with a recommendation: Move the Crown Victoria's fuel tank from behind the rear axle to an area in front of it. If the tank couldn't be moved, Wells wrote, Ford should consider other options -- reinforcing the tank with shields to protect it from suspension components, lining the inside of the gas tank with a bladder to prevent leaks or installing a fire suppression system.

In a letter accompanying the report, Hall told Ford the Crown Victoria "does not adequately protect our officers in one of their principal job environments." Wells waited nine months for his first meeting with Ford to talk about his report. In the meantime, the fires and deaths continued, with police still the most visible victims.

On Feb. 18, 2000, Officer Skip Fink pulled over a motorist for a traffic violation on U.S. 60 in Tempe, Ariz. It was 5:40 a.m., not yet daylight. Before Fink could get out of his car, a Honda Prelude slammed into his 1999Crown Victoria. Gas gushed out of the punctured tank, and flames quickly consumed the car. Several motorists tried to help Fink. They heard the 264-pound man moaning and trying to speak as he tried to escape. Finally, rescuers pulled him from the wreckage. He was alive when paramedics arrived but showed no signs of life when he arrived at the Maricopa County Medical Center. An autopsy showed he died of burns and smoke inhalation. He had no other traumatic injuries.

There would have been nothing suspicious about Fink's death -- except that 14 months earlier, the same thing had happened to state Police Officer Juan Cruz. Parked on the inside westbound lane of I-10 outside Tucson, Cruz was finishing an accident report in his 1996 Crown Victoria when it was rear-ended by a woman who had been drinking while celebrating her 21st birthday. The patrol car burst into flames.Cruz died fromburns and smoke inhalation.

Two rear-ended Crown Victorias. Two fireballs. Two dead state troopers. Too many coincidences for Mike Lopker, manager of the City of Phoenix's police fleet. Lopker worried: Was something wrong with the Crown Vic? Would an officer on the Phoenix force die next?

From a mechanics' yard in south Phoenix, Lopker's assistants called Ford. Lopker said Ford assured them the car was safe.

He recalled a Ford official as saying, "We don't have anything to share. We don't know anything about this. You're the only one experiencing this."

Kristen Kinley, a Ford spokeswoman, said the company tried to be responsive to all of its police customers. "Safety at Ford has never taken a backseat to other issues," she said.

[Yeah never? the Pinto was known ahead of time and DELIBERATE to save a few bucks as well as the 1965 Mustangs which also were fireballs - Never...hahahahaha...only a total moronice numbnuts believes Ford]

Lopker, a mechanic, assumed he was a lone voice in Arizona, unaware that Wells, the Florida trooper, had warned Ford about the vehicle six months earlier. Nonetheless, he persisted in seeking answers. Lopker had mechanics put four Crown Vics up on lifts to look for any sharp edges or metal tabs that could puncture the gas tank. They didn't find anything remarkable.

"We're in the maintenance business," Lopker said. "We don't do crash investigations. We didn't understand what happens in a crash." Lopker's office called its Ford representative in the Phoenix area, asking whether he knew anything about the fires or car. "We were unsuccessful getting any information from Ford," Lopker said.

In the meantime, Wells, who wrote the Florida Highway Patrol report, met with Ford officials in Dearborn on May 4, 2000. They put cars on lifts, examined the vehicles and talked about Wells' concerns. He said Ford assured him themodel was safe.

In Arizona, Lopker and officials at the state Department of Public Safety remained worried. The department called Ford in January 2001. The next month, Ford dispatched a handful of representatives to Phoenix to meet with department officials. The Ford representatives pulled out charts and accident statistics and told the state troopers that the Crown Victoria was as safe as it could be and exceeded federal standards.

Just before midnight on March 26, 2001, Phoenix Police Officer Jason Schechterle was called to investigate a report of a dead body. Firefighters also were dispatched. on his way to the scene, at an intersection in Phoenix, a taxi with a passenger just out of jail rammed intoSchechterle's 1996 Crown Vic. A fire engulfed the vehicle. Firefighters, already at the scene, put it out. With black smoke and flames swirling around the car, Officer Kevin Chadwick saw what he thought was a silhouette in the front seat. Schechterle was trapped in the seat belt, unconscious. Chadwick cut the belt and freed Schechterle. The fire had burned away Schechterle's ears and most of his nose. It had mangled his hands. He remained in a coma for more than two months and, when he woke, discovered he was blind.

Concern continues to rise
Lopker's worst fears were now realized. But Ford still was telling him the Crown Vic was the "safest car you can buy," he said, and the automaker explained that it could not design a car to survive every crash or protect against all conditions.

The Crown Vic has rear-wheel drive and what is known as a live rear axle, features cops value. When the wheels move up and down, the whole axle moves up and down. The drive shaft, which runs the length of the car from the engine to the rear axle, also must be able to move with the axle. That kind of movement requires room in the car's underbody, leaving little space for a gas tank in front of the rear axle. Ford said the only option was to place the tank behind the rear axle.

Still not satisfiedwith what he was hearing from Ford, Lopker turned to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, which monitors auto safety. He wanted to know whether the Crown Vic was susceptible to rear-impact fires.

What troubled him was that he never had seen a problem on such a wide scale when his officers drove the Chevrolet Caprice, which also had a rear-mounted gas tank. But unlike the Crown Vic's steel tank, the Caprice's tank was plastic and mounted horizontally below the trunk floor. The Crown Vic's tank is mounted vertically, with greater exposure to suspension parts, NHTSA records show.

Lopker asked his staff to call NHTSA in Washington, D.C. At first, they called once a day. Then once a week. Then every two weeks. Then once a month. No answer. "They didn't want to talk to us -- ever," Lopker said. Responding in a recent interview, NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson said: "I reject that we were nonresponsive. The agency was very responsive to the concerns that were raised by a number of law enforcement agencies."

Dennis Garrett, director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, also was pressing NHTSA for answers. "There is an unusually high occurrence of fires associated with rear-end collisions of Crown Victoria vehicles," Garrett said in a letter to NHTSA dated April 3, 2001. "This is a trend which should be looked at to see if it is reflected at the national level. The design specifications and construction of the Crown Victoria should be examined by the experts at your disposal to determine if a design flaw exists or authoritatively state that the Crown Victoria, which has become the last full-sized police package sedan, is a safe vehicle for our nation's law enforcement officers."

NHTSA responded by sending a representative to Phoenix to meet with Garrett and other department officials. The representative told them the car was built to federal standards. But the pressure on NHTSA intensified. on June 5, 2001, a defect investigator from NHTSA and a division chief recommended that the agency investigate how often the Crown Vic was catching fire.

In late June, two Ford executives -- Brian Geraghty, director of design analysis, and Bill Koeppel, manager of production vehicle safety and compliance -- met with NHTSA officials to discuss the Crown Vic. During the two-hour meeting, Geraghty and Koeppel passed out the same booklet that Ford had been giving to worried police agencies, according to Geraghty's testimony in a lawsuit filed in the 1997 death of Florida Trooper Robert Smith.

Geraghty testified in a deposition that he and Koeppel met July 3 with Ford's Critical Concerns Review Group, which reviews safety issues, and explained to the group "that there wasn't a defect investigation being opened. We were not told of one being opened." Someone was keeping minutes and made this notation about the potential investigation: "got an agreement NHTSA will not open."

Geraghty, in an interview with the Free Press, described those minutes as inaccurate and said the note-taker was the "kind of a person in the corner who writes things down." "There was not an agreement," he said. "There never was an agreement."

Ford was mired in rollover battle
In any event, the last thing Ford needed at the time was another public relations nightmare, another federal investigation. The company already was reeling from a year of crises. The automaker was roiled by a bitter fight with Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. over who was to blame for fatal accidents caused when Firestone tires failed and Ford Explorers rolled over. Ford also was bleeding money. Sales were slipping. Its U.S. market share was eroding.

Doug Lampe, a Ford lawyer, said the tumult did not overshadow Ford's response to the Crown Vic fires. "The company has the staff, the resources, to handle multiple issues at one time," Lampe said. "That is not a challenge we are unable to meet."

The rollover controversy erupted in 2000, when Bridgestone/Firestone recalled 14.4 million tires, most of them on the Explorer, under pressure from Ford. Congressional hearings soon followed.
The wrangling between the companies flared up again on May 21, 2001, when Firestone said it was ending its 95-year relationship with Ford, creating a messy public divorce. The next day, Ford announced it would replace 13 million more Firestone tires not covered by the original recall.
Ford blamed Firestone, saying it had built defective tires for the Explorer. Bridgestone/Firestone blamed Ford, saying the design of the Explorer caused it to roll over when a tire failed. By then, nearly 150 people had died in crashes blamed on the tires, most of which were on Explorers.

NHTSA cleared the Explorer in October 2001, saying its design did not contribute to rollovers that occurred after tire tread separations. But the crisis took its toll, and there was unrest in the executive ranks.

The first hint of changes to come occurred when Bill Ford, company chairman, began taking more control of the business in July 2001. The board created the Office of Chairman and Chief Executive. Under the unorthodox arrangement, Ford and Chief Executive Jacques Nasser met every few weeks to review company operations. And it appeared Nasser and many top aides might be on the way out.

That August, as the company's red ink grew, Ford announced that it was cutting 4,000 to 5,000 white-collar jobs. on Oct. 30, Nasser was ousted, and Bill Ford stepped in as chief executive. By year's end, Ford would suffer staggering losses -- $5.45 billion. on Jan. 11, 2002, Ford announced a sweeping restructuring -- it was cutting 21,500 jobs in North America, a total of 35,000 worldwide. It was closing five plants and killing off four poor-selling vehicles.

Against this tumultuous backdrop, the problem of fires in police cars was a quiet, relatively small crisis. But it was catching up with Ford.

Ford Device Fails Crash Tests
It could worsen police car fuel leaks, officials say

July 16, 2003

BY JOCELYN PARKER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

A device Ford Motor Co. hoped would protect Crown Victoria police cars from fuel tank leaks could actually worsen the problem, according to crash tests ordered by the City of Dallas.

Dallas officials said Tuesday that Ford's Trunk Packs, which are supposed to safeguard the fuel tank from sharp equipment during rear-end crashes, may increase the amount of fuel leakage during accidents.

City officials reported significant fuel leaks in two 75 m.p.h. crash tests.

A test conducted last week on a Crown Victoria equipped with a plastic trunk pack resulted in a 7.6-gallon fuel leakage, far more than the 0.3 gallons of leakage that resulted from a test Ford conducted last year without the Trunk Pack, according to Dallas City Attorney Madeleine Johnson.

"While a full analysis of test results is still under way, we felt we could not sit on the results about the Trunk Packs since Ford has recently started shipping them to departments who ordered them," Johnson said in a statement.

She added that Ford is making the Trunk Packs, which hold sharp items such as axes and crowbars, available to dealers for $250. They're touted as safety devices.

The news is the latest blow for the police car, which has been involved in several fuel-tank fires following high-speed, rear collisions. The vehicle, which has been the subject of several lawsuits and a federal investigation, has been the overwhelming choice of police officers and state troopers in the United States. About 85 percent of all police departments and state troopers use the vehicles.

Fuel tank fires following high-speed rear-end collisions have killed at least 12 officers.

Johnson told the Free Press that the City of Dallas began the tests recently because there was no evidence that Ford has tested the Trunk Packs before releasing them. Johnson said Dallas invited Ford to participate in the testing, but the company declined.

"You just don't want to put out a device unless you've adequately tested it," Johnson said.

Johnson added thatone of the tests consisted of filling the Trunk Pack with 200 pounds of sand to represent the weight of the police equipment and then crash-testing it in the vehicle at 75 m.p.h. She said the force of the Trunk Pack hitting the fuel tank caused it to split "like a melon."

Ford meanwhile, says it has conducted tests for the Trunk Pack and those tests have determined that the device protects the tank from puncture.

"We've done our own testing and we believe it does what it's intended" to do, said Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley.

Kinley said it's difficult for Ford to make any determination about the tests ordered by the city because the company hasn't had an opportunity to examine the vehicle.

"It would be ideal for us to test the vehicle to better understand their test," Kinley added.

Consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, said the news will just put Ford under more pressure to redesign the vehicle.

Latest Crown Victoria Fire Claims Family of NASCAR Crew Chief http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=96&did=839
Ford Shields: In closing its investigation without a recall, NHTSA relied on the plastic shields which Ford is providing to police department as a fix for the rear crash fires in its CVPI’s. It’s not adequate and the police of this country deserve better. The shields developed by Ford were tested in a rear impact by a Taurus at 75 mph into a CVPI. Although Ford proclaimed the test a success, Dallas City officials discovered it failed despite having favorable test conditions that officers with their lives at risk won’t have on the highway. The lower portion of the trunk had sand bags in it – a device that every highway engineer knows is used to reduce the hazards of impacts into road abutments and would reduce the likelihood of the Taurus impact going into the fuel tank in the crash. The Taurus itself has a soft, lower front than the SUV that struck Trooper Ambrose’s CVPI. The Taurus weighs less than many vehicles that have struck CVPI’s. The shields also don’t protect all the areas which have been shown to have been punctured in crashes. Police officers deserve protection in all survivable fire crashes, not some, not most, but all.

Better Alternative: Better and more protective technology exists than developed by Ford to protect occupants of Crown Victoria’s. Firetrace International has developed a combination of tank bladders and flame retardants for Crown Victoria’s. It had a crash test conducted by Goodrich Aerospace at its Hurricane Mesa Test Track, a military testing center in Hurricane, Utah. Using a pusher/rocket sled, engineers crashed a 1970 Ford F-100 pick-up truck weighing more than 4,000 pounds into the rear of a 1999 CVPI equipped with both a Fuel Safe bladder and a Fire Retardant Panel (FIRE Panel). The pick-up impacted the rear of the Crown Victoria at 81.9 mph. Even though the CVPI contained real gasoline instead of non-flammable Stoddard fluid, there was no fire. Neither technology is radical or new. The bladder has been used in Ford's own race cars while the fire retardant has been used for years in military planes and has been tested by the Bureau of Standards in passenger motor vehicles. The Motor Vehicle Fire Research Institute has tested similar technology on GM side saddle pickups with success at impact speeds far in excess of the present or proposed safety standards.

From the Pinto to the Crown Victoria, Ford has used lawyers and lobbyists to engineer loopholes into safety regulations and oppose recalls rather than using engineers to build crash fire safety into motor vehicles. The police and the public have paid with their lives and burned bodies for the resulting unsafe fuel system. If the Federal government won’t stand up against Ford, then it’s up to states like New York and cities like Dallas and trial lawyers to do so. We owe it to the police who protect us to protect them.


Over the past 10 years, there have been nearly 40 regional recalls, with two announced in the past year. Manufacturers conduct regional recalls when a particular defect is more likely to manifest itself when exposed to regional weather conditions, like snow or heat.

For example, in 1999, Ford recalled Windstar minivans to correct a fuel tank defect that caused cracks in hot weather. These cracks could leak fuel and vapor, creating a serious fire hazard. With NHTSA’s blessing, Ford conducted a recall in 11 states, the 10 southernmost counties in California, and Clark County in Nevada. This left consumers in some of the hottest parts of the country – including California’s Death Valley, Tennessee, and New Mexico – without a guaranteed free repair.

Similarly, numerous recalls arising from defects attributed to corrosion caused by road salt have included Washington, D.C., and Maryland, but not Virginia, so commuters who drive from Virginia to Washington, D.C., every day for work are not guaranteed the same notice and free repair that their neighbors will get.

"Regional recalls make no sense, particularly in a mobile society where people often drive from one region to the next," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "If a vehicle has a defect that makes it unsafe, the defect needs to be fixed on all similar vehicles."

Added Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety, "NHTSA’s actions suggest that it doesn’t snow in Buffalo and it’s not hot in Death Valley. For years, NHTSA required manufacturers to conduct nationwide recalls. But the agency eventually gave in to automakers. Geographic recalls reduce auto company recall costs at the expense of public safety."



{I'm glad I take public transit...the buses here are from england so chances are it the elctrical system might fail - but I might make it out alive.}

I'm glad I don't rely on Consumer reports who don't report much of what counts it would seem.

Interestingly is 1000 samples is as good as 10,000 as Woochifer claimes...then why do 10,000? Ahh that's right. Just like in audio...there is validity and reliability. 50 trillion samples reliably saying the wrong thing is worse than one sample saying the right thing.

[Woochifer]

Well I still only hear hearsay no facts about the audio equipment.

As for cars - I may be out of date with my info but "All Mercedes, Audi, Jaguar and Land Rover" did poorly.

Now I though American car companies owned all of these except Mercedes which owns Chrysler. So Chrysler doing better than Mercedes is odd since they're one and the same company.

Mercedes' trouble began even before the Daimler-Chrysler merger. Their ranking on the JD Power initial quality survey had been on the decline for years after ranking in the top three consistently throughout the 80s and early-90s, and it's been within the past three or four years that it started showing up on Consumer Reports' reliability ratings as well.

Land Rover and other Rover Group models have had reliability problems as long as I can remember, and their past partners before Ford acquired the Land Rover brand in 2000 were BMW and Honda. The Rover Group was responsible for the Sterling, which was basically the British version of the Acura Legend, and even with a Honda platform and drivetrain, the Sterling was one of the most unreliable cars of the 80s.

Audi has a partnership with Volkwagen and has no ties to any American companies. And there have been several write-ups in business publications on the production and reliability problems that Volkwagen has had, and how it threatens to undermine the great sales rebound that the company has had the last few years. You want to go on a lemon hunt, look no further than VW, which has been in the bottom tier of the JD Power rankings for years and the CU data corroborates it.

Consumer reports...Yes I bought my 1994 Grand Am because Consumer Reports said it was more reliable than most every car in its class - I should have read the Lemon Aid as it was rubbished...Consumer Reports LATER had it as the lemon it was and still is.

The Focus has an awful record in Lemon Aid and good one in Consumer reports...ahh stats from polls...and did I read correctly that we're believing the manufacturers and what they claim is a break down? 20 to 18 even if that is correct is negligable and probably rooted out with a larger poll...like all the people who don't subscribe to consumer reports. Far less people own German cars so I would like to see the actual break down...Ie;the sample size for European cars would be FAR smaller than that of the American cars.

What data source does Lemon Aid use? My recollection from a prior thread is that they don't even track every model for every year. That would indicate that they are working from secondary data sources, which they would need to independently verify. It seems very simplistic.

Your comments on the Focus aren't factually correct either. CU has always rated the Focus highly based on its performance and subjective evaluations, but they did not recommend it during its first three years because of reliability problems. The last two model years, the reliability has improved enough for them to recommend the model.

And your comments on statistics don't really indicate a well grounded understanding of sampling procedures and survey research. First off, CU's car reliability ratings are based on a sample of 700,000 responses, which in any kind of survey research would constitute an exceptionally large sample. It doesn't matter one bit that the respondents are primarily Consumer Reports subscribers, provided that the pool of vehicles represented in the survey is a sufficiently random sample from different production facilities and production runs.

Any model that does not have a large enough sample to meet the confidence interval that they specify, they exclude from the reliability rankings. In a random survey, you only need a sample of about 25-30 responses to meet a confidence level of at least 90%. EVERY model that they report on meets their standard for statistical validity, and I believe that their stats rely on a fairly high degree of rigor before it gets reported. The CU survey methodology is valid because they maintain control over the survey distribution and data collection. This certain seems more comparable than whatever source Lemon Aid is using, since they seem to rely on industry generated data that may or may not have identical reporting formats and categorical protocols.

The only survey I'm aware of that has more extensive coverage than the CU survey is the JD Power survey, which bases its rankings on more than a million responses. (I got one when I bought my Acura, and my parents got the JD Power surveys for their Toyota and VW) In general, if you're looking for indications on things to come, the JD Power survey is a good source for spotting potential trends, like when Mercedes started dropping down the ranking and Cadillac moved up. The Consumer Reports reliability ratings typically confirm the JD Power trends a few years later.

Buyers have figured it out over ten years since Toyota has finally surpassed GM. Though the Americans have figured it out with all the numerous co-productions. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe(same car same plant - slightly alrtered body and interior) have gotten good reviews...perhaps mixing the Japanese know-how with the American styling I have said would be best for both entities.

So, are you saying that the mass market always gravitates to the best products? If so, then the genius of Bose's mass market success must say something about their product quality as well.

Now if only Ford could somehow stop having their tires blow up because THEY can't design wheels and if they can stop their cars from blowing up on rear impact - Crown Victoria police cars - they might sit better with me. I mean they've been making them long enough and been sued enough time and they STILL have the exact same problems. Jaguar is owned by Ford...and the Jag is a POS. Blaming Europe? Now that I don't get...That's like Disney blaming Euro Disney for making no money...when it was stupid decsion by American owners not to investigate what their market was first.

Now, you're getting into the ridiculous exaggerations. First off, aside from the much publicized Ford Explorer fitted with Firestone tires, what other Ford models have had problems with tires blowing up? If it's the wheels that were at fault (and Ford buys their wheels from a lot of the same outsource suppliers as other car companies), then how come identical Explorer models with Goodyear tires had lower failure rates? And all that stuff about police cars blowing up, it's hard to do any kind of comparison considering that the Ford Crown Victoria is the ONLY police interceptor being marketed in North America right now. Do you know that these exploding police cars are doing so because of a design defect or because of how those police cars get driven? I got news for you ... ANY car can and will explode if it gets into a collision at high speeds.

Your whole attempt to excuse European car makers and somehow blame American ownership for their slide into mediocrity is really grasping at straws. Jaguar was a very unreliable car when they were under British ownership. The most famous trait of vintage Jags was that the British designers could never figure out how to keep those things from leaking oil. At least under Ford ownership, the engine blocks don't leak anymore.

The problem with European cars is that they did not keep up with the rest of the industry. Mercedes is attempting to compete in a global market, yet they have not fundamentally changed how they design new models, which is akin to reinventing the wheel ever new model run. Because of their much higher R&D costs, they've decided to maintain their profit margins per car by basically cheapening and cutting corners on the materials used, which has been discussed at length on Mercedes message boards for about the last five years. Lexus passed Mercedes by designing their cars around a price target, and using shared components from previous Lexus models or other Toyotas if necessary.

BMW held steady, but their new 5 and 7 series models have had early production problems, especially in the electrical systems, which are basically introducing a lot of new and unproven technologies.

If you actually read that article that I posted, you'll note that 20 years ago, the American car makers had a defect rate that was more than double what the European car makers showed. Since then, the European car makers have lowered their defect from about 50/100 vehicles to 20/100 vehicles; however, American car makers have lowered their defect rate from over 100/100 vehicles to 18/100 vehicles. If anything, the American car makers had adapted to global competition, while European car makers have let their guard down.

I have heard various problems with Marantz here as well...one dealer dumped Marantz for repair and lousy customer service in the 1980s brought in Sony and Yammie and they sucked dumped them - then you see a decade later they bring them back and give em another try - Now they carry 3 or even 4 of those major players. Seems to me like it's a cycle - bad runs very possible. Denon marantz is funny because hey they don't care which you buy the moeny goes to the same pot. Sorta like the GM of receivers. I mean they brought out Saturn as a way to distance themselves from themselves - gee hopefully people won't think we're GM. Didn't work but it made a lot of sense.

First off, some history about Marantz (which you seem to be missing here). Marantz was an American company owned by Saul Marantz that primarily sold separates and tube components, until the mid-70s when the company was sold to Superscope, and that was when they shifted their R&D and manufacturing to Japan. It stayed there until Philips acquired the consumer unit in the 80s. Two years ago, Denon was acquired by a holding company, and a few months later, that holding company bought out most of Philips' share of Marantz.

You're basically spinning a load about the Denon/Marantz ownership, because both companies have maintained separate R&D facilities and use different outsource manufacturers. That might be changing since D&M Holdings is now setting up a separate manufacturing subsidiary, presumably to merge Denon and Marantz' manufacturing operations under one roof. And McIntosh is now owned by the same company, yet you don't see huge changes to their product line and their manufacturing continues to originate from the same U.S. facility as before.

You say that things go in cycles, but the thing is that some manufacturers have had more problematic production runs than others. Yamaha for example has never gone into a problematic cycle where they would just crank out one bad run after another. Denon has also been very good over the years at keeping away from big problems. Sometimes it is luck of the draw, but other times you have glaring patterns like some of Sony's DE series receivers, or the Marantz SR-7200 which had a design defect in the power supply that made its way into the early production models, or the reliability problems that h/k had in their receivers once they started outsourcing their manufacturing.

And to the contrary, the GM brand is not as universally reviled as your wishful thinking would indicate. So, you bought a lemon from them, get over it! That was 10 years ago. All of GM's advertising puts Saturn into the GM family, along with Saab and Hummer. Saturn has never ran from their GM ownership. Their brand loyalty stems from a whole other slew of factors related to the buying experience that are different from every other car company out there. Saturn's owner satisfaction ratings are up there with Lexus, and it's not entirely because the cars are the best, but rather because of the buying experience.