Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[RGA]

Continued from last post - I love cars where the wheels fall off - wrap me up a focus....have a I driven a Ford lately? Thank heaven - if I want to risk my life I'd rather jump from planes.


Ford's Trouble Prone Focus Hit With Safety Recalls & Investigations

With 9 safety recalls to date and 6 defect investigations, the Ford Focus is proving to be an embarrassment to Ford Motor Company and its new President William Clay Ford, who are trying to stress quality in the wake of the Ford Explorer/Firestone ATX, Wilderness AT tire debacle.

Not since General Motors introduced its ill-fated X-car in 1980 (Buick Skylark, Chevrolet Citation, Oldsmobile Omega and Pontiac Phoenix) which had 13 recalls in its first two years has a manufacturer had so many recalls. Among the Focus recalls are 351,000 2000 models whose roof pillars can cause head injuries in crashes and 203,700 2000 models whose left rear wheel falls off.

The Focus' sinking reputation was further hammered hard by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's announcement of 6 major investigations from February to May 2002. Evening up the wheel problem, NHTSA launched a new investigation into wheels falling off the 2000 models, only this time it was both right and left rear wheels. Airbags that deployed inadvertently and that burned drivers were the subjects of two investigation in 2000-01 models. The 2000 model was hit with a investigation into engine compartment fires, which has now been upgraded to cover 2001-02 models as well. 2000-01 models are being investigated for engine stalling. 2000-2002 models are under investigation for collapse of the front suspension.

In November 1999, CAS wrote then Chairman William Clay Ford and warned him about Ford overall reputation for poor quality and covering up defects to avoid recalls. The Focus fiasco shows Mr. Ford has a long row to hoe before he can restore some of the luster to his great grandfather's company."

[wasch_24]

Hey, RGA.

Maybe you should sign up for a membership on carreview.com.

Just scroll down and click on the link.

[Hivihead]

I owned a '89 Honda Accord till Mar '03. 243,000 miles in 14 years. Still original engine and transmission. No need for rebuilt yet when I sold it. I had the head gasket changed at around 190,000 miles. I think the '80s japanese cars are more reliable as Q/C back then has something to do with it. And it was made in Japan. Not in Ohio like today's Accords and Civics(though not 100% are). Now I have a Mercedes CLK. It is running fine as well. So far so good...
Same to audio. My Denon 2802 is doing its job, thank you. I have AML last year and now sitting at home, recovering from the transplant. I turn the Denon on and watch movies, playing SOCOM II online, XBOX Live...you name it. I have it on all day. And it runs around the clock for months. Through my B&W 6.1 speakers, they sound fantastic. The mids are B&W's strong point. I do like Marantz if you listen to music a lot. In one box, the SR series is the one you have to auditon. I know the SR-12S1 is out of your range, but you'll be amazed how good it sounds, comparing to the Yamaha's DSP-ZS9.

[Woochifer]

Continued from last post - I love cars where the wheels fall off - wrap me up a focus....have a I driven a Ford lately? Thank heaven - if I want to risk my life I'd rather jump from planes.

Oh what a piece of work you go through just to avoid admitting that you don't know squat about statistics and how survey research is conducted! All of your quotes are covering the Focus models that Consumer Reports did not recommend, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove, other than avoid my questions about how CU's 675,000 response pool cannot generate statistically significant findings on European car reliability. (Hey, you were the one who brought up what gets taught in basics stats courses, so I figured that you'd actually taken one and would know what it takes to create a statistically significant sample) Spinning the subject and avoiding my questions does not make your original points any less untruthful and/or atrociously illogical than they are.

I mean, you complain about CU's conclusions that are based on a viable and reliable survey form that's consistent from year to year, and based on one of the largest consumer survey samples anywhere. The data being reported is consistent, the minimum confidence levels are consistent, and the reporting methodology is consistent.

Instead, you rely on the Lemon Aid guide that was culled together through inconsistent data sources ("confidential" sources, complaints, etc.) that may or may not be comparable from model to model, and might be no better than hearsay. Plus, their survey of models is incomplete. Maybe they are a good source, maybe they aren't. But, judging from what I've seen so far, their methodology is too subjective and leaves too many data gaps to be consistent. It makes for nice anecdotal conversation, but for anything approaching statistical rigor, it looks pretty thin.

Do you REALLY think it's safer to jump out of airplanes than to drive a Ford Focus? I guess you've never sought a job as an actuary. That would make for rather amusing conversation if you ever got interviewed for such a position.

[RGA]

You say I don't provide proof about the Fire issue - I did - you're wrong too bad too sad. Focus is a POS Consumer reports recommended them when they came out...provide the first issue please that says otherwise. The Focus when it came out was well reviewed by almost everyone - car of the year in Europe to boot.

Polling customers is meaningless without all of the pertinant information. If you knew thing one about statistics which it appears you don't simply taking polls is not enough unless you provide a breakdown of what EXACTLY went wrong...polling the companies is completely useless as they're as untrustworthy an entity as it gets.

Statistically relevance is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS better especially in a poll methodology with MORE trials...which is why you didn't answer my question If 1000 is as good as 10,000 then why did CR bother to do 675,000. Because more is best. if 650,000 were done on American cars versus 25,000.00 for the rest it makes a difference period. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know the details of a poll now is there - according to you I insult the integrity of CR if I dare ask for a statistical breakdown - like what kind of problems 20 versus 18 is barely anything...and if it is truly atrocious to have this kind of difference - then 18(american) to 12(Japanese) is absolutely horrendous which would then prove that it's FAR better to go Japanese. I am not defending Euro Cars because they are not particularly well reviewed in the Lemon Aid. Most Mercededs are not recommended, nor Land Rover, nor Jaguar. BMW fairs better(On certain cars) because they offer performance - and with performance comes repair work.

What I want to know is how many are serious problems versus the non serious kind - a break down of the age of drivers for cars because it is shown that Younger people are more reckless statistically than are middle aged and increases again with older people.

All of those isues impact the car's breakdown rates. You drive it into the ground then it's going to have problems no matter what it is. The Civic hatchback and Ford Mustang in Canada is extremely popular with 16 year old first time drivers - I'd like to see comparative stats on cars owned by 16-21 year olds. We know the Civic overall is an outstanding car in this regard but not too many in this age bracket buy Toyota Tercels. These two a while ago were Tercel in first place Civic in second for repair histories in this class...but the swing for the Tercel may have been because of not being a popular car AT ALL amongst first time teens. and very popular with starter families. Without knowing the statistical breakdowns you may as well be watching the graphs on tv as to why you should buy this dish detergent. The graph is 9 feet high compared t the other graph but the percentage on the side(if you can read it) says 1000 dishes cleaned while the other cleans 1001 dishes...but the graph makes it LOOK like detergent X cleans 900 times the amount.

I never defended the Euro cars I simply mentioned that I believed that Americans owned some of those companies...Which Ford does - Jaguar. Jag has an atrocious record. Then YOU cover for Ford by saying Jaguar was a lousy car before Ford took them over as if to say that I thought they were good. No, they have always sucked...my point is now then that they sucked no matter who owned them(Ford sure didn't fix the problem now have they)...SO lets's look to see why - anal customers who send 20 complaints in over something that another car owner would not complain about at all. ---WHAT is the complaint? Lemon Aid does take customer complaint polls but they don't stack their stats solely on those numbers. What are the problems? I send my ar in for the sticky E-brake handle glue - that's one service - my friend who brings is Sunfire in for a Transmission replacement is one service complaint. What is the 20 versus 18. I'll take 20 minor problems over 18 major ones. Those numbers may be the opposite too...but I would like to know otherwise the number doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't mind a stat on percentage of recalls either. That requires no half assed polling. Polls also have bias issues on the way questions are asked...I'm sure you knew that when you took the psych courses but it's a skewable issue and a weakness of polls.

Ford 2001 Focus car of the year and recommended doesn't help all the engine fires and numerous other recalls. Initial quality tests don't help because unless the engine catches fire in the review then hey all things are a go for a good review (0-90 days whoah that helps). Why should anyone believe that Ford has fixed their Focus? Convince me that the 2004 model is better than the 2000-2003 models and won't have the same problems in the same numbers(Initial quality revies can't). There is a reason Consumer Reports had Good to EXCELLENT all across the line for my Pontac Grand Am in 1994 then 3 years later the thing reads like a solid black inkblock of the crap that it was.

I went by Consumer Reports who gave it glowing reviews and "Much better build quality than the previous models" blah blah blah. Ooops no sorry they ain't. Should have read the Lemon Aid which I did a few months later which warned of the crap at the outset. Ford has had all these fire problems for so many years and with so many models that they begin to become a laughing stock...even if they finally build a good car so do other companies ... why take the risk that because CR says the 2004 model is good because they drove it around and a wheel didn't fall off like the old ones that hay problem's fixed buy this car. It isn't even good when it works...the review by JD Power gave the comfort and power etc ratings 2 and 3 out of five...adding to the less than good mecahnical ratings and the fire history of the vehicles you'd have to be a total moron - provided you know all of this information ahed of time - to actually buy one of those piles of kaka. Especially when the lots here have Honda Civics for LESS money????? WTF Even he Neon another mess is going for 1-2K MORE. No wonder the Civic is the best selling car in Canada.

I have a friend who works at Ford and I saw their internal customer satisfaction polls (versus ALL the other dealers in British Columbia) versus Honda. Honda's dealers ran from 95%-100% and involved any servicing number of servicing quality of servicing initial purchase stisfaction. Ford had posters giving award to a delaer that could get to 60%. Most were in the 30-50% range. If anything Ford is better than GM overall and Chrysler - well judjing by their CEO's comment in my last thread he basically admits his cars are junk...which of course they are.

[Woochifer]

You say I don't provide proof about the Fire issue - I did - you're wrong too bad too sad. Focus is a POS Consumer reports recommended them when they came out...provide the first issue please that says otherwise. The Focus when it came out was well reviewed by almost everyone - car of the year in Europe to boot.

Try CU's auto issues that came out after the first reliability reports rolled in. Whenever they make any kind of recommendation on a new vehicle, they ALWAYS preface that by saying that the reliability data has not come in yet, and if the reliability comes up negative, they pull the recommendation. The VW New Beetle and Mercedes M-class come to mind as other models where they've done this.

Polling customers is meaningless without all of the pertinant information. If you knew thing one about statistics which it appears you don't simply taking polls is not enough unless you provide a breakdown of what EXACTLY went wrong...polling the companies is completely useless as they're as untrustworthy an entity as it gets.

Give me f**kin break! Your holy bible Lemon Aid does not have ANY statistical validation for the defects that they list. Nor is there any consistency in how data is collected from vehicle to vehicle. And now you're giving a lecture on how to conduct survey research? At least Consumer Reports will tell the reader when there is insufficient data to make a conclusion about a specific model.

Consumer Reports is NOT an academic journal, they are a consumer magazine, and I doubt you'll find any other statistical tables in ANY consumer oriented magazine that contains a full accounting of how the statistical analysis was done. Your demand for some kind of full accounting of the results presumes that consumers want to thumb through hundreds of pages worth of error analysis and meaningless anecdotal accounts.

Statistically relevance is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS better especially in a poll methodology with MORE trials...which is why you didn't answer my question If 1000 is as good as 10,000 then why did CR bother to do 675,000. Because more is best. if 650,000 were done on American cars versus 25,000.00 for the rest it makes a difference period. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know the details of a poll now is there - according to you I insult the integrity of CR if I dare ask for a statistical breakdown - like what kind of problems 20 versus 18 is barely anything...and if it is truly atrocious to have this kind of difference - then 18(american) to 12(Japanese) is absolutely horrendous which would then prove that it's FAR better to go Japanese. I am not defending Euro Cars because they are not particularly well reviewed in the Lemon Aid. Most Mercededs are not recommended, nor Land Rover, nor Jaguar. BMW fairs better(On certain cars) because they offer performance - and with performance comes repair work.

Once again, your inability to comprehend basic statistical theory and all too apparent desire to exaggerate and sensationalize is showing. You know why CU goes with a sample of 675,000? Because that annual survey goes out to ALL of their subscribers! And that large a sample allows them to do comparisons between different model years and create statistically significant samples for most of the car models on the road.

That 675,000 response pool is divided among over 100 different car models and tracked over a five-year trend. That large pool ensures that you can parse the data down to model and year, and still achieve statistically significant results for the majority of models on the road. Anything that CAN meet their minimum statistical significance threshold gets reported, and anything that CANNOT is reported as insufficient data. What part of that don't you understand? If we were talking about ONE car model from ONE model year, then the statistical difference between a 1,000 car random sample versus a 10,000 car random sample would not matter.

You're basically hurling every bit of crap that you can at CU for actually saying that American car makers have caught up with European car makers. Why all the hatred? This is no shocking news story if you've seen how the trends have played out the past few years -- it was only a matter of time.

What I want to know is how many are serious problems versus the non serious kind - a break down of the age of drivers for cars because it is shown that Younger people are more reckless statistically than are middle aged and increases again with older people.

All of those isues impact the car's breakdown rates. You drive it into the ground then it's going to have problems no matter what it is. The Civic hatchback and Ford Mustang in Canada is extremely popular with 16 year old first time drivers - I'd like to see comparative stats on cars owned by 16-21 year olds. We know the Civic overall is an outstanding car in this regard but not too many in this age bracket buy Toyota Tercels. These two a while ago were Tercel in first place Civic in second for repair histories in this class...but the swing for the Tercel may have been because of not being a popular car AT ALL amongst first time teens. and very popular with starter families. Without knowing the statistical breakdowns you may as well be watching the graphs on tv as to why you should buy this dish detergent. The graph is 9 feet high compared t the other graph but the percentage on the side(if you can read it) says 1000 dishes cleaned while the other cleans 1001 dishes...but the graph makes it LOOK like detergent X cleans 900 times the amount.

Good luck trying to generate any kind of statistically significant sampling with all that parsing and cross-tabulating that you're looking for. And better luck trying to get those types of survey results into any kind of readable form that makes sense to anybody. Bringing all these irrelevant externalities into the discussion just exposes the lack of first hand experience that you have with any kind of survey research.

Trying to equate CU's data reporting with dishwashing commercials is patently ridiculous exaggeration, and just another untruth among the many that you've spread into this thread.

I never defended the Euro cars I simply mentioned that I believed that Americans owned some of those companies...Which Ford does - Jaguar. Jag has an atrocious record. Then YOU cover for Ford by saying Jaguar was a lousy car before Ford took them over as if to say that I thought they were good. No, they have always sucked...my point is now then that they sucked no matter who owned them(Ford sure didn't fix the problem now have they)...SO lets's look to see why - anal customers who send 20 complaints in over something that another car owner would not complain about at all. ---WHAT is the complaint? Lemon Aid does take customer complaint polls but they don't stack their stats solely on those numbers. What are the problems? I send my ar in for the sticky E-brake handle glue - that's one service - my friend who brings is Sunfire in for a Transmission replacement is one service complaint. What is the 20 versus 18. I'll take 20 minor problems over 18 major ones. Those numbers may be the opposite too...but I would like to know otherwise the number doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't mind a stat on percentage of recalls either. That requires no half assed polling. Polls also have bias issues on the way questions are asked...I'm sure you knew that when you took the psych courses but it's a skewable issue and a weakness of polls.

Oh, the mark of desperation. 20 minor ones versus 18 major ones? Please. Where's your proof that this scenario is at all anything other than your own sensationalist imagination at work? Again, it's all assumption, conjecture, unsupportable exaggeration, etc. Times change, and long held stereotypes need to step aside as reality and facts creep into the picture -- deal with it.

Your point about recalls is weak because it's the discretion of the auto maker as to whether or not they issue a general recall, or just quietly alert service managers about a potential problem. My Acura has never been recalled, but I can tell you that there have been service alerts that needed extended checkups or part replacement when I brought the vehicle in for servicing, including a distributor problem that left me stranded 200 miles from home a few years ago on the 4th of July (the alert on that problem came up a few months later, too late to help me though).

Bias is a valid objection (as I'm sure you'll agree about the validity of sighted audio listenings), but from having taken part in the CU auto reliability survey in the past, I can tell you that it is one of the better done consumer surveys that I've seen. The language is neutral in tone, and the problem categories are discretely laid out with very clear descriptions of what types of problems belong in which blanks. If you've never seen the CU survey form before, then you have zero basis for mouthing off about bias or skewedness or "half-assed polling."

Ford 2001 Focus car of the year and recommended doesn't help all the engine fires and numerous other recalls. Initial quality tests don't help because unless the engine catches fire in the review then hey all things are a go for a good review (0-90 days whoah that helps). Why should anyone believe that Ford has fixed their Focus? Convince me that the 2004 model is better than the 2000-2003 models and won't have the same problems in the same numbers(Initial quality revies can't). There is a reason Consumer Reports had Good to EXCELLENT all across the line for my Pontac Grand Am in 1994 then 3 years later the thing reads like a solid black inkblock of the crap that it was.

I went by Consumer Reports who gave it glowing reviews and "Much better build quality than the previous models" blah blah blah. Ooops no sorry they ain't. Should have read the Lemon Aid which I did a few months later which warned of the crap at the outset. Ford has had all these fire problems for so many years and with so many models that they begin to become a laughing stock...even if they finally build a good car so do other companies ... why take the risk that because CR says the 2004 model is good because they drove it around and a wheel didn't fall off like the old ones that hay problem's fixed buy this car. It isn't even good when it works...the review by JD Power gave the comfort and power etc ratings 2 and 3 out of five...adding to the less than good mecahnical ratings and the fire history of the vehicles you'd have to be a total moron - provided you know all of this information ahed of time - to actually buy one of those piles of kaka. Especially when the lots here have Honda Civics for LESS money????? WTF Even he Neon another mess is going for 1-2K MORE. No wonder the Civic is the best selling car in Canada.

I have a friend who works at Ford and I saw their internal customer satisfaction polls (versus ALL the other dealers in British Columbia) versus Honda. Honda's dealers ran from 95%-100% and involved any servicing number of servicing quality of servicing initial purchase stisfaction. Ford had posters giving award to a delaer that could get to 60%. Most were in the 30-50% range. If anything Ford is better than GM overall and Chrysler - well judjing by their CEO's comment in my last thread he basically admits his cars are junk...which of course they are.

So you bought a lemon! Big friggin' deal! So your personal experience was lousy, but does that mean that EVERYBODY who's ever bought an American car shares your viewpoint? And does it mean that because Pontiac built a lousy model in 1994, that they and EVERY OTHER American car maker would build nothing but lousy cars from then into eternity? Check the pretzel logic and personal bias at the door if you want to argue statistics, you might actually learn something.

[RGA]

Typical of your continual bias and straw mans. RE: 20 versus 18...instead of inventing my position try reading and thinking too tough for you it would seem.

Sneak into any Ford dealer's results of customer satisfaction - I was there I saw it - that was three years ago seriously doubtmuch has changed.

Car recalls can be federally demanded or demanded by state on safety issues...not determined by the manufacturer...you would hope the manufacturer would do it themselves but that would take corporate responsibility and they - Ford mainly - has proven a disinterest in lives over profit...with the exact same fir issues spanning many models over now 3 decades my conclusion is simple they are clueless...why you would support proven beyond any doubt their heinous practices is ridiculous. The fact their sales rank for an ex big three is number five in the largest market car seller outside trucks and SUV's is proving customers despite CR are not stupid.

BTW it would take a one page summary of the breakdown of their statistical analysis. Engine/transmission/ body are arguably the most high ticket brakdowns on a car. Rear tailight, e-break handle glue, interior cloth issues are minor in comparison. CR does break down each componant to their credit -as does Lemon Aid.

As usual to support your CR blathering you state that Lemon doesn't have "any consistency in how data is collected from vehicle to vehicle. And now you're giving a lecture on how to conduct survey research?"

Man you like to dream stuff up - they provide FAR more information than CR about the cars. You won't see the recall and horrendously CRAPPY Ford safety in CR despite the fact that they've been crappy for 30 years in this regard.

Lemon Aid:
Ratings are based upon over 700,000 owners reports, government-recorded safety complaints, and confidential automaker service bulletins. It's the only publication that lists hundreds of secret warranties and service tips now in effect for 1987-2002 cars and minivans. Lemon-Aid will tell you exactly what may go wrong today or tomorrow with your present vehicle or the one you may purchase. And, if repairs are needed, you will have the needed service bulletins to shop around for the cheapest repairs possible. Lemon-Aid also gives you:

A fresh, iconoclastic, "in your face" attitude formed from over thirty-one years of consumer advocacy in the trenches.
An expose of safety features that kill (airbags and anti-lock brakes)
Crashworthiness data going back a decade
Secret warranty summaries with reprinted bulletins as proof
Summarized service bulletins to get right to the problem
Specific prices for more models and years
A section dealing with the best and worst used vehicles over three decades
Legal information to help you gain an out of-court settlement and sample complaint letters/faxes A list of great Internet gripe sites Almost 500 pages in a pocket-book format Background

Their main objective, to inform and protect consumers in an industry known for its dishonesty and exaggerated claims, remains unchanged. However, these guides also focus on warranties and confidential service bulletins that automakers swear don't exist. That's why you'll be interested in finding 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 gathered throughout the year from owner complaints, whistle blowers, lawsuits, and judgments, as well as from confidential manufacturer service bulletins.

Each year, we target generic vehicle defects and abusive auto industry practices. After warning readers, we then demand that automakers extend their warranties to pay for factory mistakes. For example, last year we highlighted Chrysler's engine headgaket, automatic transmission, paint, and brake problems, and Ford and GM engine intake manifold, automatic transmission, paint delamination and peeling problems. Additionally we downrated Honda and Toyota after noting a decline in their quality control.

Following Lemon-Aid's urging, all three Detroit automakers paid off thousands of powertrain and paint claims on six year or older vehicles extended their warranties (secretly) and lost some important small claims cases, as well.

Even Toyota and Honda, unhappy with Lemon-Aid's lowered rating, decided last year to extend their powertrain warranties up to 8 years for engine and automatic transmission failures on 1997-2002 vehicles.

The latest 2003-04 Lemon-Aid guides make a critical comparison of 1990-2003 cars, trucks, SUVs, and minivans and safer, cheaper, and more reliable alternatives are given for each vehicle (see the sample Ford Taurus and Sable and Chrysler minivan ratings taken from the early guides).

Points are also given for crash test results and for the availability of essential safety features. Performance comparison tests and a list of essential accessories are only a sampling of the wealth of material you have at your fingertips. Lemon-Aid combines test results with owner complaints, Internet postings, and surveys to determine its ratings.

Phil Edmonston
January 2003

Bonus is even more surveys than CR. Also, where did I ever say thet Europe was a bastian of quality. The article you presented blasts Eupoean cars with 20 defects versus 18 American ... hardly a huge difference to start with. Lumping all cars together as European versus American is not help either genius. At the very least I would like to know which performed better or worse...maybe BMW is 15 and Volkswagen is 27? The USA today of course isn't bright enough to provide the reader any sort of facts but rather purport broad generalizations. The exact same broad generalizations that you accuse me of - but at least I'm not writing for a newspaper where objectivity is supposedly a requirment over ramblings on forums. Hell Jaguar, Mercedes and Land Rover could be pulling the entire European number into the gutter for all we know. And we simply don't know do we?

American cars have a number of good models in Lemon Aid - but over the entire range they are certainly crap compared to the Japanese - presumably you didn't buy Acura for no reason...they cost more are not very big vehicles you'll find more power in a NA car for cheaper? The fact the American counterpart would proably be in the shop twice as often or nearly so must have come into the equation somewhere - or happened to be a nice coincidence.

You keep saying my one bad experience with a 94 grand am...HARDLY - you look at the CR of that Car...I'm not the only one...MOST people have the exact same story to tell. ****ty paint jobs lousy transmission, horrible steering engines, electrical systems, and abysmal safety is not relegated to one car it's the ENTIRE run. if you don't have a tirade of numerous problems with it you're in the minority and fluked out - even CR supports that. The words of the idiot running Chrysler basically admits that 90% of his cars are junk compared to the Japanese and 10% are as good...THINK this is the f***ing guy who runs the f***ing company and he even KNOWS his cars were a POS that are mostly O.K. And hell their cars seem to come under less blasting than Ford or GM even in CR. What must their CEO's say?

[Woochifer]

Typical of your continual bias and straw mans. RE: 20 versus 18...instead of inventing my position try reading and thinking too tough for you it would seem.

Hey, you were the one that was throwing all those hypotheticals against the wall and see which one would stick. All I'm doing is pointing out what a statistically validated base of data says. If that's too difficult a concept for your to comprehend, then don't blame me.

Sneak into any Ford dealer's results of customer satisfaction - I was there I saw it - that was three years ago seriously doubtmuch has changed.

Ooooh, the clandestine secret files that you and nobody else has access to. Sorry, but sneaking into a Ford dealer and thumbing through their customer surveys is not exactly how I enjoy spending my evenings. (And are those customer surveys dealing with the cars themselves, or the dealer's customer service? Two VERY different things) If breaking into Ford dealers and reading customer survey forms is your joy in life, then by all means keep it up. So congratulations, but what does this have to do with European cars now having a higher defect rate than American cars?

Car recalls can be federally demanded or demanded by state on safety issues...not determined by the manufacturer...you would hope the manufacturer would do it themselves but that would take corporate responsibility and they - Ford mainly - has proven a disinterest in lives over profit...with the exact same fir issues spanning many models over now 3 decades my conclusion is simple they are clueless...why you would support proven beyond any doubt their heinous practices is ridiculous. The fact their sales rank for an ex big three is number five in the largest market car seller outside trucks and SUV's is proving customers despite CR are not stupid.

Am I supporting these practices? No. And where do I say that? Nowhere. All I'm pointing out is that you cannot use recall rate as a statistically valid way of doing comparisons because the thresholds for issuing general recalls versus service alerts is up to the discretion of the manufacturer. It constitutes a variable and therefore a bias.

BTW it would take a one page summary of the breakdown of their statistical analysis. Engine/transmission/ body are arguably the most high ticket brakdowns on a car. Rear tailight, e-break handle glue, interior cloth issues are minor in comparison. CR does break down each componant to their credit -as does Lemon Aid.

As usual to support your CR blathering you state that Lemon doesn't have "any consistency in how data is collected from vehicle to vehicle. And now you're giving a lecture on how to conduct survey research?"

So where is the consistency in how Lemon Aid collects and reports their data? They provide the detail that you like so much because they don't have a statistical significance threshold for reporting data like CU does. Collect enough anecdotal evidence, and it's easy to draw any conclusion about any vehicle, but not one that can meet any kind of statistically significant standard.

Man you like to dream stuff up - they provide FAR more information than CR about the cars. You won't see the recall and horrendously CRAPPY Ford safety in CR despite the fact that they've been crappy for 30 years in this regard.

But, again you cannot generalize this for EVERY single Ford model, and for EVERY model year, and for EVERY single unit.

Bonus is even more surveys than CR. Also, where did I ever say thet Europe was a bastian of quality. The article you presented blasts Eupoean cars with 20 defects versus 18 American ... hardly a huge difference to start with. Lumping all cars together as European versus American is not help either genius. At the very least I would like to know which performed better or worse...maybe BMW is 15 and Volkswagen is 27? The USA today of course isn't bright enough to provide the reader any sort of facts but rather purport broad generalizations. The exact same broad generalizations that you accuse me of - but at least I'm not writing for a newspaper where objectivity is supposedly a requirment over ramblings on forums. Hell Jaguar, Mercedes and Land Rover could be pulling the entire European number into the gutter for all we know. And we simply don't know do we?

Good gawd, there you go again! Just making up numbers and spinning the subject to try and avoid having to say ANYTHING positive about American cars.

But, again with Lemon Aid where is the CONSISTENCY in the reporting? They're talking about owner reports, but do they do the statistical validation themselves, or is it just pulling anecdotes out of a database and reporting it as fact? With the CU reliability data, the survey is widely circulated, they maintain full control over the data entry and reporting, and you know that it is a consistent set of questions from year to year. Comparisons between models and model years are valid because the questions, the sample validation procedures, and the minimum confidence levels are identical. Lemon Aid claims to be pulling all of these different sources together to make their conclusion, which is fine for anecdotal reporting, but the more subjective and open ended data that you pull into a dataset without devoting major resources into postcoding, the less reliable it is.

No, the broad generalizations that I've seen you make on this thread are in the rhelm of untruths and sensationalist exaggerations. Nowhere in that USA Today article is there anything that can be factually disputed. You're more than welcome to reinterpret things or take a different angle, but nowhere is there anything in the article that even approach the sensationalism that you inserted.

American cars have a number of good models in Lemon Aid - but over the entire range they are certainly crap compared to the Japanese - presumably you didn't buy Acura for no reason...they cost more are not very big vehicles you'll find more power in a NA car for cheaper? The fact the American counterpart would proably be in the shop twice as often or nearly so must have come into the equation somewhere - or happened to be a nice coincidence.

FYI, I bought the Acura BECAUSE of its small outer dimensions. Have you ever tried parallel parking in San Francisco? For pure driving experience within my budget, I would have opted for a Ford Probe (which incidentally had an above average reliability record), but its limited outer view and bulkier body nixed it from consideration. My car has stranded me three times with various electrical system problems since I bought it, so while I feel it's a good car, it's certainly not bulletproof and perfect. Even my parents' Camry has been recalled twice, and even after the fixes, the brakes on that car still suck and Toyota jerks my parents around every time they inquire about the brakes.

You keep saying my one bad experience with a 94 grand am...HARDLY - you look at the CR of that Car...I'm not the only one...MOST people have the exact same story to tell. ****ty paint jobs lousy transmission, horrible steering engines, electrical systems, and abysmal safety is not relegated to one car it's the ENTIRE run. if you don't have a tirade of numerous problems with it you're in the minority and fluked out - even CR supports that. The words of the idiot running Chrysler basically admits that 90% of his cars are junk compared to the Japanese and 10% are as good...THINK this is the f***ing guy who runs the f***ing company and he even KNOWS his cars were a POS that are mostly O.K. And hell their cars seem to come under less blasting than Ford or GM even in CR. What must their CEO's say?

Yeah, and you blame CU for enticing you to buy that Grand Am. They can only go on the basis of the data in front of them. Your quote about MOST people having a similar tale to tell about the Grand Am is something you have no proof of, and is just more unfounded assumption, exaggeration, and sensationalism. (On the CU reliability table, it only takes a failure rate of 7.5% to earn a black mark, so there's plenty of room between going over 7.5% versus going over 50%+1, which would define "most"; even using CU's old scale based on standard deviations above and below the mean, it would still be a very high hurdle to achieve 50%+1 on all those purported defects that you named) The previous model years might have been reliable, but unfortunately you drew the short straw and got a lemon. Life is unfair, move on.

And BTW, that quote that you cited is NINE years old and Robert Lutz isn't even at Chrysler anymore. The American brands started moving up on the European nameplates on the JD Power survey about five years ago, and the trend on the CU reliability reports has similarly trended upwards the past three or so years. Like I said, it's hardly shocking news if you've been following things the past few years.

[RGA]

First of all you have no idea how the Lemon Aid gathers its evidence uyou are simply trying to make them look incompetant. Again you skirt the issue - you say there is nothing untruthful about the article but a lie of omission is still a lie. There is nothing beneficial in that article...tell me exactly what I or anyone else on this planet can get that would help them make a car purchase of a specific BMW. I said several times and you keep ignoring it that the numbers are telling us NOTHING. 20 versus 18 great what about it. Serious problems all problems which car companies. Nice of you to ASSUME that 20 for all Eurpean Cars is IDENTICAL all across every model and European companies. Are you so stupid that you cannot see why knowing more of the breakdown here is impoertant. Christ we're talking about totally generalized stats that could mean any god damn thing and you're holding thta it has relevance? I said at the outset that my numbers were hypothetical----THEY HAVE TO BE since we get no relevant numbers from the article. I'm presenting a WHAT IF statement. I'm not saying these ARE the numbers. My point is a valid one...how do you KNOW for sure that BMW rates 15 complaints and Merceded is 30 - the AVERAGE is what they are providing. Certainly some are better than others and that was my point. The same applies to American Cars.

I would also like to see the breakdown of the American cars - it's not a one sided thing. I would be interested in several layers of the stats because general averages are positively useless. ---- Especially when both are very close. How do the Japanes/American car co-sponsorships do for example. If the Japanese cars rank as a 12...then it is presumably relevant to suggest that PERHAPS the American/Japanese co-productions fair better than the American only models. See why it's important to KNOW the brakdown? Again if we KNOW the Japanese are 30-50% better then does it NOT STAND TO REASON that the co-productions are responsible for lowering that HIGH 18 figure. For all we know and I ssay again this is hypothetical the American ONLY versions are are well above 18. Judging by the two averages this hypothetical is very likely to be the case comparing the two numbers.

Looking at Consumer Reports USED CARS and the Lemon Aid guide both are pretty close to each other. I bet that some of the best cars out of America are the co-produced ones and the ones that are dreadful Piles of crap will most certainly NOT be the ones that are co-produced. In fact I've looked and it is seemingly the case. The sprint the three Chryslers that got good reviews were all either co-productions or entirely built by the likes of Suzuki. Yes there are exceptions.

As for the Grand Am 7.5% failure rate is the minuimum? Then how do you know what the ACTUAL rate is? What is that rate over every year? Only 7.5 cars out of every 100 fails over the warranty period? 7.5% of every 100 cars fails every month, year, off the line, what the Fuc* does the stat mean? Are 80 cars completely trouble free while the other 20 are total disasters like mine. I had it in roughly 7 times in a year and half. That's only 4.67% if over yearly periods. And more to the point WHAT is failing?

First rule of stats is know EXACTLY and specifically what the stats are telling you. All we have is a bunch of averages and numbers which are not specific in any way.

Yeah Lutz is gone but that hasn't helped Chrysler with sever not recommendeds in all of their family cars. But at least they don't have wheels falling off like the Focus and many of the others which only catch fire possibly horribly burning you to death. No car is perfect I'm not saying that the Japanese are perfect either - I've seen reports of lemons which are pitiably hilarious - I know a person who had a Tercel and had the engine cylinder fire right through the block or some such thing at a mere 70,000km. And Tercel WAS rated high by every publication. But if we're playing the odds the Japanese ON AVERAGE is considerably superior to American Cars - not counting co-productions is the numbers I really want to see.