Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[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.

[Woochifer]

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.

Spinning these hypothetical mantras over and over don't help your argument any. I'm going on what I see on Lemon Aid's website (which provides no documentation of their statistics), and the claims that they make. I'm not saying that they're incompetent, I'm saying that their findings have no consistent standard for statistical significance.

The CU survey has a consistent standard for statistical significance that they use every year. What they cannot report because it fails to meet the statistical threshold, they let you know. Your continued spinning demand for some kind of statistical breakdown ignores this simple fact, and ignores basic statistical sampling procedures.

Calling this a lie of omission is ridiculously far fetched because there's no deceit on the part of CU or the USA Today article. What's so untruthful about reporting the same stats the same way for the past 24 years? The only reason it made news this year, is because the conclusion changed. Was it a lie when CU put out press releases the past 23 years saying that American cars were less reliable than their European and Japanese counterparts? You're only getting your panties into a bunch because the conclusion no longer supports your biases.

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.

If CU has been recording their reliability data the same way the past two decades, then these trends ARE valid. (The only change they made in the detailed reporting was four years ago when they changed from a scale that varied based on standard deviation to a straight scale. The reason? The reliability differences between cars had narrowed to the point that standard deviations no longer had as much meaning as before. Plus, they wanted to more accurately report on the reliability of older vehicles) Going down from 108 defects per 100 cars to 18 defects per 100 cars is nothing to sneeze at, and while European carmakers going from 53 defects per 100 cars down to 20 is an improvement, it did not represent nearly as big an improvement as what American car makers have done. The trends have been going in that direction for years, so this is nothing earthshaking.

The more detail that gets reported, the less reliable the findings are because then you're getting into consistency problems associated with postcoding open ended responses. Plus, with a survey sample as large as CU's, it makes no sense to process open ended responses or make the survey so long and complicated that you cannot get statistically significant responses for most problem categories. (Not to mention that if you make any kind of question list too long and/or open ended, you decrease the response rate and potentially leave the questions open to subjective interpretation, which can render the data meaningless since the question means something different to different respondents) It's already a feat that CU can get as much statistically valid data split into the categories that they do use.

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?

It's irrelevant because a 7.5% failure rate in a SPECIFIC CATEGORY for a vehicle less than one-year old is already very high (anything over 10% I believe gets CU's worst mark). I know you're just desperate to make that Grand Am out to be the worst failure in automotive history, but you'll just have to settle for CU pulling their recommendation once the reliability data came out. The importance of the reliability tables is seeing how different car models compare to one another, not whether the failure rate is 10% or 12% or 50%. If most other new cars have a failure rate under 5% in any given category (which is true for the most part), then seeing something over 10% is a red flag regardless of the actual rate. If you take the time to actually read the CU data tables, you'll see that the scale represents the percentage of cars that have had repair work done in a specific category over the life of the vehicle up to five-years old. (They changed to a fixed scale four years ago to indicate how the percentage of repairs increases as the car ages) You don't need to have taken Stats 101 to interpret CU's data tables, they're very easy to decipher.

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.

And like I said, if you want endless cross-tabulations into specifics and details, then you lose the statistical validity of the database. That just how it is with ANY database. Qualitative research is fine for getting at details and expository information, but it's no good if you're looking for a finding that's consistently replicable and reliable from trial to trial. It spins a good story and makes for good copy, but it's also easily contradicted and discredited.

And it's not like CU's reporting is hiding stuff. Just look at their glossary to get the type of repair work that goes into each category and look at how they arrive at their findings. If you want to believe that defects in European cars don't mean the same thing as American cars, then go ahead and keep believing that, but there's no reliable evidence that will back up that contention.

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.

Again, you're looking at anecdotes and trying to generalize them. Spins a good story and I guess has entertainment value, but it ultimately has little relevance to anyone other than the unfortunate consumer who bought a lemon. Good survey research design is designed to take the subjectivity out of the equation and put every subject being analyzed on an equal footing, by establishing minimum confidence levels and statistical validity for the data. If you're trying to accuse CU of lying because they're not parsing the data in a way that supports your anecdotal evidence, then you've totally missed the point.

[RGA]

actually I worked in accounting for a decade and understand stats and it is you who is trying to weasal out of the truth.

You are banking on the following premise 20 Europpean cars fail versus 18 fails of Eurpean cars...therefore European cars are now worse than American cars. Answer yes oer no to this because that is ALL the stats presented by USA indicate. Improvements began when co-productions started. A co-production is not an American vehicle the same way a non co-produced American car is. I give the American car manufacturers credit for finally realizing the don't how to design nor build a good vehicle and to get help from those who are competant and know how to run a business that puts out quality over profit margins...seemingly they could not do that either judging by Toyota and Honda for that matter.

Reliability is meaningless woithout validity - you studied that right? There are studies with over 250,000 people in longitudinal nutrition studies over a 30 year period which is now kaka because the tested the wrong thing.

your trial notion is idiotic. In audio they use a 16 trial test - invented by??? some engineer no doubt. The statistical significance of a trial of 10 would be 9 correct in a DBT. OR 59/100(achieved as 6/10 ten times in a row with one 5). You run your 10 trial test and score 6 your test is chucked out and you can't tell the difference between componant a and b. But with more trials achiviing the the 59/100 is the EXACT same statistically significant outcome at the .05 level. Naturally you don't see this little notion dawn on anyone or the reaosn WHY more trials would be used. More trials = more confidence in the result.

All I said was at the very beginning the USA today article compared European cars with American cars. Well Jaguar is a Ford - it's owned by an Amrican then it is American...and if it doesn't count as an American Car then how the hell does the Japanese co=produced cars count as Amercian. Oh I see only if it serves the American car manufacture best. If Jag scores terrible then it's European but if the Toyota Matrix(ahem Pontiac Vibe) gets great reviews it's a GM?

Sorry it doesn't take a person with a Stats 101 course to know that without knowing specifics then you have nothing. I don't mean a 50 page report. This is not hard...the next time CR comes out with a full listing of cars I can set up a spread sheet with Co-produced cars and results on one side and non co-produced cars on the other - and separate the American Cars and European Cars.

TO be fair and i should have said this last post...I said BMW may have better scores than than the 20...well for all we know Chrysler may be 14 and GM is pulling the number badly.

Generalizing American cars witha far higher reliable statistics base (in terms of confidence level) versus that of European cars is ridiculous. I don't blame CR for the stat because i understand what it is they're REALLY saying in that article that the Big three have come a LONG way to curtail their problems - 108 to 18 is terrific...naturally they're going to say wow look how much we improved compared to the Europeans. But then they had SO MUCH farther to come. What you expected the Europeans to improve to 1?

For this to be worth thing one to a BUYER who is looking at manufacturers you NEED to know the numbers for GM, Chrysler, Ford, BMW, Mercedes. What are the percentage for each company. Surely if they have the numbers to make a broad and useless generalizaion they have the percentage for each car manufacturer - and then for each car. I mean it would make sense for Ford to know that hey the Focus and or Explorer are bringing the entire company into the mud maybe it's time to dump the sh!t and move on to something else. Or at the very least phone Toyota and ask them to re-design the car for them so wheels don't fall off and engines don't catch fire. This method saves both companies money - build them in the same plant.

You don't seem to want to look at individual cars - or the co-production issue because I suspect you've read CR like I have and know yourself which ones get recommended and which ones are dung heeps.

None of this has anything to do with Yammie, Marantz and Denon. There was no stat on these that I can find...except for anecdotal stories of my friend the dealer or my friend the repairman who saw more of this in than that.

[Woochifer]

actually I worked in accounting for a decade and understand stats and it is you who is trying to weasal out of the truth.

Just because you can work your way around a ledger sheet does not mean that you know anything about survey research design, validation procedures, or how to report statistics using that methodology. And if I'm weaseling out of the truth, then what is YOUR definition of the truth? That CU is lying? That their statistical procedures are biased? That European cars are more reliable than Americanones just because you say so? Sorry, but molding universal truth out of your own biased version of reality doesn't stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny.

You are banking on the following premise 20 Europpean cars fail versus 18 fails of Eurpean cars...therefore European cars are now worse than American cars. Answer yes oer no to this because that is ALL the stats presented by USA indicate. Improvements began when co-productions started. A co-production is not an American vehicle the same way a non co-produced American car is. I give the American car manufacturers credit for finally realizing the don't how to design nor build a good vehicle and to get help from those who are competant and know how to run a business that puts out quality over profit margins...seemingly they could not do that either judging by Toyota and Honda for that matter.

You're just putting words into my mouth for argument's sake. Just because you have a love for exaggerating, does not mean that others share your obsession. Nowhere did I say that European cars are now WORSE than American cars. Whenever I say that one car is WORSE than another, I go by a lot more criteria than just the reliability record. If you go back to my original point, I was simply pointing out that based on the CU survey, American cars now have a lower defect rate than European cars, where's the untruth in that? And why this sets off such an illogically visceral reaction on your part is anyone's guess. If you want to parse that general point to death and try and find exceptions, asterisks, etc. and try and find some hypothetical rearrangement of the data that better fits your biases, go ahead. But, then it certainly would not have more validity than what CU reported.

Reliability is meaningless woithout validity - you studied that right? There are studies with over 250,000 people in longitudinal nutrition studies over a 30 year period which is now kaka because the tested the wrong thing.

So, tell me the invalid part of the CU data collection procedures, sampling, and/or survey form. Just because you can point out one example of bad research design doesn't mean that all research is therefore invalid.

your trial notion is idiotic. In audio they use a 16 trial test - invented by??? some engineer no doubt. The statistical significance of a trial of 10 would be 9 correct in a DBT. OR 59/100(achieved as 6/10 ten times in a row with one 5). You run your 10 trial test and score 6 your test is chucked out and you can't tell the difference between componant a and b. But with more trials achiviing the the 59/100 is the EXACT same statistically significant outcome at the .05 level. Naturally you don't see this little notion dawn on anyone or the reaosn WHY more trials would be used. More trials = more confidence in the result.

What trial notion did I bring up? The DBT research design that you're bringing up is completely off topic because a consumer survey is not about doing repeated trials of a behavioral input and comparing stimulus variables. If you survey a consumer about their vehicle's repair history 100 times, guess what, they will give you the same response 100 times. Now you're REALLY getting desperate by bringing these kinds of irrelevancies into the discussion.

All I said was at the very beginning the USA today article compared European cars with American cars. Well Jaguar is a Ford - it's owned by an Amrican then it is American...and if it doesn't count as an American Car then how the hell does the Japanese co=produced cars count as Amercian. Oh I see only if it serves the American car manufacture best. If Jag scores terrible then it's European but if the Toyota Matrix(ahem Pontiac Vibe) gets great reviews it's a GM?

First off, the main conclusion of the USA Today article is that this year's batch of cars represents the first time that European nameplates have a higher defect rate than American cars in 24 years of tracking the data. You were trying to berate American cars for their reliability, and this is obviously some valid data to the contrary. Volvo's also now owned by Ford, but the cars are still designed and built in Sweden. Jaguar's owned by Ford, but they are still designed and built in Britain. The one strongsuit of the CU survey is that they have been consistent during that time period in tracking and reporting the data.

Sorry it doesn't take a person with a Stats 101 course to know that without knowing specifics then you have nothing. I don't mean a 50 page report. This is not hard...the next time CR comes out with a full listing of cars I can set up a spread sheet with Co-produced cars and results on one side and non co-produced cars on the other - and separate the American Cars and European Cars.

What specifics are you trying to get at? They're tracking the data the exact same way that they did the past 24 years, which makes these kinds of comparisons relevant. The other tracking trends have been pointing in that direction for years (i.e. VW and Mercedes' reliability declines, BMW's recent problems with the 5 and 7 series, Land Rover's perennial reliability issues, etc.).

Coproduced cars represent a relatively small segment of the overall market, certainly not big enough to drive a 675,000 response survey, and you can check the sales charts from R.H. Polk and other sources if you want to look for that. If you want to go on the basis of where they are produced, then that's another story altogether given that many foreign car companies now make cars here, and a lot of domestic cars are made in Mexico, Canada, and elsewhere. But, the country of origin is something that CU does not track from year-to-year, and the occasions (with the first U.S. made Honda Accords I remember) where they did compare U.S. and Japanese made versions of identical models, they found no significant differences in the reliability.

Generalizing American cars witha far higher reliable statistics base (in terms of confidence level) versus that of European cars is ridiculous. I don't blame CR for the stat because i understand what it is they're REALLY saying in that article that the Big three have come a LONG way to curtail their problems - 108 to 18 is terrific...naturally they're going to say wow look how much we improved compared to the Europeans. But then they had SO MUCH farther to come. What you expected the Europeans to improve to 1?

Considering how far ahead European nameplates were, you would expect that they would be able to maintain at least a slight edge. But, like I said, Mercedes made the mistake of not changing the fundamental way that they design cars. They still do a bumper-to-bumper redesign with every new model cycle, and their desire to maintain profit margins in the face of rising R&D costs led them to economize on the parts used in the vehicles themselves. BMW's recent 5 and 7 series models introduced some new untested electronics, some of which have proven unreliable. Volkswagen let their QC guard down as their sales picked up, and now their reputation's taking a beating, which is too bad because I generally like their cars otherwise and my wife has been saving up for a New Beetle. European car makers at one point had a better than 2-to-1 edge in their defect rate. How they let that huge edge whither away should be the burning question rather than trivialities about how the survey sample was divied up. And as I've pointed out repeatedly, this is not some one-year outlier result (and with survey samples this large, outliers are not going to drive findings), it's part of a general trend that's been going on for the past few years.

For this to be worth thing one to a BUYER who is looking at manufacturers you NEED to know the numbers for GM, Chrysler, Ford, BMW, Mercedes. What are the percentage for each company. Surely if they have the numbers to make a broad and useless generalizaion they have the percentage for each car manufacturer - and then for each car. I mean it would make sense for Ford to know that hey the Focus and or Explorer are bringing the entire company into the mud maybe it's time to dump the sh!t and move on to something else. Or at the very least phone Toyota and ask them to re-design the car for them so wheels don't fall off and engines don't catch fire. This method saves both companies money - build them in the same plant.

No, what matters to the buyer is how reliable the model that they are test driving has been. They don't care that the VW Passat has had an average reliability record for the most part if the VW Jetta that they are interested in buying has had high defect rates in most categories. If CU is reporting the data, then it meets their minimum confidence level, if the data's insufficient, then the buyer's on their own. All that other background about which car maker or model has a higher proportion of the sample, or how the company does in aggregate, makes for good bulletin board fodder and fanboy discussions, but pretty much irrelevant otherwise.

You don't seem to want to look at individual cars - or the co-production issue because I suspect you've read CR like I have and know yourself which ones get recommended and which ones are dung heeps.

Quite the contrary, that overall defect rate is very indicative of a general trend that I've seen among individual European models over the past five or six years. For example, before 1998, Mercedes were mostly above average or much better than average in their reliability records, but around the introduction of the M-class, successive model introductions have shown more problems than before. VW has had a similar slide in the reliability of most of its models as well. BMW was strong for the most part, but CU's now reporting on problems with the 7 series, and I've been reading other stuff about the 5 series as well. Frankly, I'm surprised that it took until this year for the CU findings to confirm what's been showing up on the JD Power rankings and CU's own reliability information on individual models the past few years.

Coproduction's not an issue because examples like the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix or the Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager or Chevy Prizm/Toyota Corolla make up such a minimal portion of the overall auto sales (at least on the American side of the sales ledger) that they would hardly make a dent in an aggregated summation like the one reported in the USA Today article, and it's not like coproduced cars have grown so much the past five years that they would completely explain the improvements in American car reliability (in fact, both the Villager and Prizm were discontinued for 2004, so the coproduction cross-badging strategy's obviously not a major part of American car makers' plans). If you're talking about shared platforms or drivetrains, then there might be an argument there. However, even in those cases, you're talking about significantly different vehicles with potentially very different reliability records. I mean, the Sterling shared the platform, drivetrain, and a lot of the same body parts as the Acura Legend, yet the reliability records of those two models were about as contrasting as you can get.

[RGA]

Just because you can work your way around a ledger sheet does not mean that you know anything about survey research design, validation procedures, or how to report statistics using that methodology. And if I'm weaseling out of the truth, then what is YOUR definition of the truth? That CU is lying? That their statistical procedures are biased? That European cars are more reliable than Americanones just because you say so? Sorry, but molding universal truth out of your own biased version of reality doesn't stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny.

I have conducted psychological testing with statistcal methodology...no I'm not a statistician...but on this it's not that tough. Again you build a straw man and down right LIE. I never said CR was lying...What I did say is that the information they provided...or was misused by USA is no help. DO you deny that based off that information you can say that Chrysler has fer defects than BMW solely based off that article. YES or no to this question? If I'm a buyer looking at the flagship from these two guys and my PRIMARY concern is breakdown rates does that article help me in ANY way? If you missed my point all this time well here it is and it should be an obvious one...though we'll see if you GET IT.

You're just putting words into my mouth for argument's sake. Just because you have a love for exaggerating, does not mean that others share your obsession. Nowhere did I say that European cars are now WORSE than American cars. Whenever I say that one car is WORSE than another, I go by a lot more criteria than just the reliability record. If you go back to my original point, I was simply pointing out that based on the CU survey, American cars now have a lower defect rate than European cars, where's the untruth in that? And why this sets off such an illogically visceral reaction on your part is anyone's guess. If you want to parse that general point to death and try and find exceptions, asterisks, etc. and try and find some hypothetical rearrangement of the data that better fits your biases, go ahead. But, then it certainly would not have more validity than what CU reported.

Oh there's a lot of untruth in it. It's sad that you can't see it. I am not arguing the number they produced - I questioned the validity of calling an American owned car company a European car...if we're going by WHERE it's built then Honda is American or Canadian but they count as Japanese. Jaguar is a Ford - an American car. If you can't see the misuse of creating statistical data here I pity you. GM buys Suzuki Swifts and re-badges them into Sprints and do they now count as American? Do you not understand this very basic concept. Without knowing what the hell they are considering European and what counts as All American or Japanese the numbers are meaningless. No CR didn't lie because perhaps they did produce something useful but typical of newspapers don't tell you the whole story. After all Newspaper writers generally aren't the brightest bulbs in the droor and rather than actually understand the issue they paraphrase the hell out of things to make a point that looks good. i mean thanks to newspapers people actually thought for 20+ years the human beings use 10% of our brains - look at the potential. D'ohh.

What trial notion did I bring up? The DBT research design that you're bringing up is completely off topic because a consumer survey is not about doing repeated trials of a behavioral input and comparing stimulus variables. If you survey a consumer about their vehicle's repair history 100 times, guess what, they will give you the same response 100 times. Now you're REALLY getting desperate by bringing these kinds of irrelevancies into the discussion.

Actually that is untrue and with your expertise in stat and psychology - you are an expert right as you seem to imply it. I brought up DBT's to illustrate the misuse of statistics and why high cofidence is important. Many surveys in psychology - the ones with a lot of questions often ask the same questions in slightly re-worded form. Low and behold the rating scale is often DIFFERENT just from the re-wording of the same question. This is not an issue in the car surveys because presumably all car owners get the exact same form so everything is equal. More trials offers higher confidence in the results however. Statistical significance determination is not a set in stone figure.

First off, the main conclusion of the USA Today article is that this year's batch of cars represents the first time that European nameplates have a higher defect rate than American cars in 24 years of tracking the data. You were trying to berate American cars for their reliability, and this is obviously some valid data to the contrary. Volvo's also now owned by Ford, but the cars are still designed and built in Sweden. Jaguar's owned by Ford, but they are still designed and built in Britain. The one strongsuit of the CU survey is that they have been consistent during that time period in tracking and reporting the data.

Have no problem with this...I wasn't defending European Cars.

What specifics are you trying to get at? They're tracking the data the exact same way that they did the past 24 years, which makes these kinds of comparisons relevant. The other tracking trends have been pointing in that direction for years (i.e. VW and Mercedes' reliability declines, BMW's recent problems with the 5 and 7 series, Land Rover's perennial reliability issues, etc.).

Okay do they keep track of the vast increases in American-Japanese co-produced vehicles in the last 24 years. My point is more to do with Japanese cars than European. I have no interest in European cars. I would simply like a number that helps THE BUYER rather than the typical American flag waving retard in the street. Buying Japanese cars and rebadging them and buying Japanese to design and properly run plants is all well and good but it says nothing to me that Americans are actually any better at bukilding cars. I'm not defending ANY of the Eurpean cars never have been. But us versus them articles - Christ it's no wonder there is so much Anti Americanism with all of the sweeping generalizations.

Coproduced cars represent a relatively small segment of the overall market, certainly not big enough to drive a 675,000 response survey, and you can check the sales charts from R.H. Polk and other sources if you want to look for that. If you want to go on the basis of where they are produced, then that's another story altogether given that many foreign car companies now make cars here, and a lot of domestic cars are made in Mexico, Canada, and elsewhere. But, the country of origin is something that CU does not track from year-to-year, and the occasions (with the first U.S. made Honda Accords I remember) where they did compare U.S. and Japanese made versions of identical models, they found no significant differences in the reliability.

Well that's weak. Firstly, I would expect no to very slight differences between the co-produced cars. I don't care where they are produced though a comparison of plants making the same cars would be of iterest to the manufacturers no doubt to see who is producing better products. What I am talking about is cars that are the same model even built in the same plant with a different label. A Nissan truck several years ago had Ford stamped right in the door - Mazda and Ford have had some sort of sister company thing going on for at least a decade. Toyota and GM with several models - Suzuki, Nissan are in there as well. Honda seems to be by themeselves.

European car makers would be advised to do the same...They improved all on their own but a cuple of Lexus designers would do Mercedes some good.

Considering how far ahead European nameplates were, you would expect that they would be able to maintain at least a slight edge. But, like I said, Mercedes made the mistake of not changing the fundamental way that they design cars. They still do a bumper-to-bumper redesign with every new model cycle, and their desire to maintain profit margins in the face of rising R&D costs led them to economize on the parts used in the vehicles themselves. BMW's recent 5 and 7 series models introduced some new untested electronics, some of which have proven unreliable. Volkswagen let their QC guard down as their sales picked up, and now their reputation's taking a beating, which is too bad because I generally like their cars otherwise and my wife has been saving up for a New Beetle. European car makers at one point had a better than 2-to-1 edge in their defect rate. How they let that huge edge whither away should be the burning question rather than trivialities about how the survey sample was divied up. And as I've pointed out repeatedly, this is not some one-year outlier result (and with survey samples this large, outliers are not going to drive findings), it's part of a general trend that's been going on for the past few years.

Well the Japanese stomp them both still. But does that mean I won't take the James Bond BMW over a top of the line Cadilac? well unless we know the SPECIFIC results of those two cars after 3 years...we won't know. 20-18 over one year...let's see it next year as well...to be sure it isn't a trough.

No, what matters to the buyer is how reliable the model that they are test driving has been. They don't care that the VW Passat has had an average reliability record for the most part if the VW Jetta that they are interested in buying has had high defect rates in most categories. If CU is reporting the data, then it meets their minimum confidence level, if the data's insufficient, then the buyer's on their own. All that other background about which car maker or model has a higher proportion of the sample, or how the company does in aggregate, makes for good bulletin board fodder and fanboy discussions, but pretty much irrelevant otherwise.

Umm that's what I've been saying - specific companies specific cars. It's a giant umbrella.
Level one: American VS European = value to individual buyer to know this stat ZERO.
Level Two: Ford VS Honda = Value to customer ---moderate because people like to feel secure with the company they are buying from.
Level three: Ford Focus VS Honda Civic = Value to know this stat - most relevant --will car catch fir and burn my wife and kids to death or will it likely not. Then you read the reports and then see number 2 and look for history of the company...which one has the roasty toasty past?

Quite the contrary, that overall defect rate is very indicative of a general trend that I've seen among individual European models over the past five or six years. For example, before 1998, Mercedes were mostly above average or much better than average in their reliability records, but around the introduction of the M-class, successive model introductions have shown more problems than before. VW has had a similar slide in the reliability of most of its models as well. BMW was strong for the most part, but CU's now reporting on problems with the 7 series, and I've been reading other stuff about the 5 series as well. Frankly, I'm surprised that it took until this year for the CU findings to confirm what's been showing up on the JD Power rankings and CU's own reliability information on individual models the past few years.

You'll have to prove those stats sorry. Mercedes has scored very poorly for at least 15 years in the Lemon Aid guide. Average is a high point for Mercedes - for that money Average doesn't cut it. Inflated prices don't help either. I may be wrong but Lemon Aid compares cars within given classes. So sports car versus sports car. So the Camero gets a high rating in the lemon aid because of performance versus surveys versus repairs versus re-sale and all that stuff and it gets ranked highly. Because they owner expects high maintenaance and versus other sports cars it does well. That to me is a reasonably fair method of evaluation...They still provide the negative numbers for repairs but it's a good indicator of the cars value. The Bugatti at 1million US is probably a POS reliability wise but not many cars go 0-300KPH in 14 seconds and hit a top speed of over 250MPH. Maintenance versus repair versus driving habits versus age of driver versus WHERE you drive all impact cars...the old joke of being better off having your car built Tuesday to Thursday would be interesting to see the stats there as well.

Coproduction's not an issue because examples like the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix or the Nissan Quest/Mercury Villager or Chevy Prizm/Toyota Corolla make up such a minimal portion of the overall auto sales (at least on the American side of the sales ledger) that they would hardly make a dent in an aggregated summation like the one reported in the USA Today article, and it's not like coproduced cars have grown so much the past five years that they would completely explain the improvements in American car reliability (in fact, both the Villager and Prizm were discontinued for 2004, so the coproduction cross-badging strategy's obviously not a major part of American car makers' plans). If you're talking about shared platforms or drivetrains, then there might be an argument there. However, even in those cases, you're talking about significantly different vehicles with potentially very different reliability records. I mean, the Sterling shared the platform, drivetrain, and a lot of the same body parts as the Acura Legend, yet the reliability records of those two models were about as contrasting as you can get.

But that could have been a design issue from the get-go. Small numbers or not we don't know...why are they not listed? Co-production is not limited to JUST both companies making the same car. But this is a minutae arguement anyway. Amercian cars across the board fall apart 50% more often than Japanese cars - if we're going to use the same CR statistic which still isn't very good as generalized statistics go. Sounds like Lutz the incompetant boob is over at GM...ahh that explains it.

Certainly they're(American makers) are getting better as a group and seem to be on the right track according to the following article. Of course I'd expect them to get better...they could not possibly have gotten much worse than they were... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3867085.htm

[topspeed]

Discussing cars with someone that doesn't even own one is like discussing audio with a deaf person.

I have been trying, lord knows I've been fighting it, to get involved because both of you have a history of going at it. It's like watching Mtry and hifitommy or Lex and SirTT, although I admit it's entertaining as hell in a slow-down-for-a-car-wreck kind of way.

However, RGA your facts, accusations, and sweeping generalizations are so far off base, I don't even know where to start...

The Grand Marquis a rebadged Mazda? What idiot told you this? It's a rebadged Crown Vic on a body-on-frame chassis that has been around since time imemorial.

Jaguar is ranked in the Top 5 of reliability, due in very large part to Fords parts and manufacturing expertise. They are not a Ford btw, they design, engineer, and manufacture their own cars. Is there Ford content? Of course and thank God for that. There's also GM (tranny), but at least the Lucas content has been vastly reduced, if not eliminated completely in the new XJ.

Ford doens't hire Japanese to run their plants, they've had their plants examined by the Japanese because they are the most efficient in the world.

GM doesn't "buy" Suzuki's and rebadge them because they OWN 25% of Suzuki. They also own a big chunk of or all of: Saab, Hummer, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), Opel, Vauxhall, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Daewoo and their domestic brands.

That wasn't a Nissan truck, that was a Mazda and yes, Mazda is owned (not partnered) by Ford. Ford also owns Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and Aston Martin along with their domestic brands.

Nissan/Infiniti is owned by Renault.

The VW Group owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Bentley, Seat, Skoda, and is related to Porsche (although they share platforms and technology, Porsche AG is still family owned)

BMW owns Rolls Royce and Mini.

DC owns a big chunk of Mitsubishi (around 35%) along with Smart, Maybach, and their domestic brands.

Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus are independent.

As far as reliability issues let's be clear, it's a lot more even out there than you think. BMW recalled the current M3 because of catastrophic engine failures (siezing) and the 3,5,and 7 series because of (drum roll please) FIRES caused by faulty design in the wiring harness. Mighty Toyota even recalled some cars (can't remember which model) due to electrical probs. Mercedes was ranked 30th out of 32 brands in reliability by a GERMAN auto mag. Audi & VW's well document quality woes have resulted in a 11% drop in sales (the third year in a row for declining sales). So you can see, it doesn't matter where it's made, they all have their share of problems.

RGA, I like you but you have a tendency to lock onto one source and proclaim it as gospel. Whether it's Lemon Aid or Peter Qvortup(sp?), you immediately discount anything that is contradictory as heresy. This is extremely short sighted and you're smarter than that. FWIW, I prefer to get my quality info not from CR, Lemon Aid, or JD Power but have found the best info comes from the long term tests conducted by C/D, R&T, Automobile, Autoweek, et.al. These guys drive the wheels off their cars in all kinds of conditions for at least 1 year or 50,000 miles. Bare in mind, auto scribes aren't terribly kind to cars and usually drive them much harder than Joe Public.

[Woochifer]

I have conducted psychological testing with statistcal methodology...no I'm not a statistician...but on this it's not that tough. Again you build a straw man and down right LIE. I never said CR was lying...What I did say is that the information they provided...or was misused by USA is no help. DO you deny that based off that information you can say that Chrysler has fer defects than BMW solely based off that article. YES or no to this question? If I'm a buyer looking at the flagship from these two guys and my PRIMARY concern is breakdown rates does that article help me in ANY way? If you missed my point all this time well here it is and it should be an obvious one...though we'll see if you GET IT.

Okay, so now I'M a liar too. Before you get your delicate sensibilities wound up even tighter, I was asking you a question whether you thought CU was lying (you already said that USA Today lied by omission, what did they omit? If you want them to reprint the entire CU auto issue, you'd be better served just buying it yourself). Now you've answered, so move on.

And on your little attempt at a yes or no pin-me-down line of questioning makes for nice drama, but again veers off-target into the rhelm of irrelevancy. But, for argument's sake I'll entertain your question. The simple answer is no, of course not.

And the long answer is that the CU press release and the USA Today article were never intended to answer that type of question. I mean, that question of whether a Chrysler is more reliable than a BMW is just as irrelevant to the content of the article as whether a Chrysler PT Cruiser is more reliable than a BMW 3-series, or whether a 2003 PT Cruiser with a turbo engine is more reliable than a 2003 BMW M3, or whether a 2003 PT Cruiser with turbo engine has more front suspension failures than a 2003 BMW M3's front suspension. You're basically creating exceptions and asterisks to suit your biases. Of course, you'll find specific European cars that are more reliable than certain American models. But, then again, in the previous 23 years when European cars as a whole routinely had lower defect rates than American ones, I could've just as easily found specific American car models that were more reliable than specific European cars.

Oh there's a lot of untruth in it. It's sad that you can't see it. I am not arguing the number they produced - I questioned the validity of calling an American owned car company a European car...if we're going by WHERE it's built then Honda is American or Canadian but they count as Japanese. Jaguar is a Ford - an American car. If you can't see the misuse of creating statistical data here I pity you. GM buys Suzuki Swifts and re-badges them into Sprints and do they now count as American? Do you not understand this very basic concept. Without knowing what the hell they are considering European and what counts as All American or Japanese the numbers are meaningless. No CR didn't lie because perhaps they did produce something useful but typical of newspapers don't tell you the whole story. After all Newspaper writers generally aren't the brightest bulbs in the droor and rather than actually understand the issue they paraphrase the hell out of things to make a point that looks good. i mean thanks to newspapers people actually thought for 20+ years the human beings use 10% of our brains - look at the potential. D'ohh.

So, we should now call Saab an American car, even though the entire design team and manufacturing facility are in Sweden? Or that all along we should have called Mazda an American car as well because Ford has held a stake in the company since the 70s? Or maybe we should now call Chryslers German cars, even though not a single Chrysler model is actually designed and manufactured in Germany? Or start calling Nissan/Infiniti a French car just because Renault holds a majority stake, even though most of the design and manufacturing operations are in either Japan or the U.S.? Your search for straws to grasp onto just to maintain this pathological need to bash American cars is getting absurd.

And before you now veer off onto yet another wild mental adventure bashing the whole journalism profession, keep in mind that USA Today was not the only newspaper that wrote an article about CU's findings. CU puts out a summary press release like that every year, and newspapers write about it every year. The previous 23 years detailed out how American cars were less reliable than the European and Asian brands, and newspapers wrote about that.

Actually that is untrue and with your expertise in stat and psychology - you are an expert right as you seem to imply it. I brought up DBT's to illustrate the misuse of statistics and why high cofidence is important. Many surveys in psychology - the ones with a lot of questions often ask the same questions in slightly re-worded form. Low and behold the rating scale is often DIFFERENT just from the re-wording of the same question. This is not an issue in the car surveys because presumably all car owners get the exact same form so everything is equal. More trials offers higher confidence in the results however. Statistical significance determination is not a set in stone figure.

I have no background in psych, aside from three college courses and participating in a couple of experiments. The survey research that I do is related to socioeconomic and market research. Even though the quantitative methods are similar, the research design can be entirely different. With a consumer survey, the variation on the measures is less than with documenting human behavior, but you still need to validate the survey with a test sample. Sure, you get higher confidence levels with higher samples, but the question is how much you're willing to invest in order to get that high sample. With any large group, you'll never get a 100% response. Does the jump from a 95% confidence level to a 99% confidence level mean that much more to the survey objective? The Census Bureau invests billions of dollar to try and achieve a 100% population count, but even with all those resources and tens of thousands of survey takers, they still only achieve about a 90% count and have to use sampling techniques to fill in the remainder. And with the more detailed socioeconomic characteristics, the entire demographic profile of the U.S., every state, every city, and every tract and block group is based on a 10% sample.

Okay do they keep track of the vast increases in American-Japanese co-produced vehicles in the last 24 years. My point is more to do with Japanese cars than European. I have no interest in European cars. I would simply like a number that helps THE BUYER rather than the typical American flag waving retard in the street. Buying Japanese cars and rebadging them and buying Japanese to design and properly run plants is all well and good but it says nothing to me that Americans are actually any better at bukilding cars. I'm not defending ANY of the Eurpean cars never have been. But us versus them articles - Christ it's no wonder there is so much Anti Americanism with all of the sweeping generalizations.

Flag waving retard? Us versus them articles? Anti-Americanism? Where the hell did this come from? Like I keep saying, look at all of the coproduced cars out there. Do any of them rank among the top selling vehicles for the big three nameplates? The only reason why Detroit car makers went to coproduction was so that they would not have to do their own ground-up compact car designs. It fills in a market gap, but it's not their primary focus. If you think that the coproduced cars constitute a large enough group to have singlehandedly driven the improvement in American car quality, you really need to pay attention to sales figures. The Chevy Silverado alone outsells the Pontiac Vibe by about 10-1. If there's such a jingoistic flag-waving slant to the American media, then how come the various problems that the American car manufacturers have had over the past couple of decades were so widely documented in the press? If you're not defending European cars, then why fly off the deep end and launch into a cut-and-paste tirade when I post something on how American cars now have a lower defect rate overall?

Well that's weak. Firstly, I would expect no to very slight differences between the co-produced cars. I don't care where they are produced though a comparison of plants making the same cars would be of iterest to the manufacturers no doubt to see who is producing better products. What I am talking about is cars that are the same model even built in the same plant with a different label. A Nissan truck several years ago had Ford stamped right in the door - Mazda and Ford have had some sort of sister company thing going on for at least a decade. Toyota and GM with several models - Suzuki, Nissan are in there as well. Honda seems to be by themeselves.

Like I said, check the sales charts. Those types of coproductions make up a miniscule share of the overall sales, and would do little if anything to drive the defect rate one way or another. Oh, and BTW, Isuzu made SUVs for Honda for a number of years.

Well the Japanese stomp them both still. But does that mean I won't take the James Bond BMW over a top of the line Cadilac? well unless we know the SPECIFIC results of those two cars after 3 years...we won't know. 20-18 over one year...let's see it next year as well...to be sure it isn't a trough.

And that's been the case for years, so tell me something I don't know. If you want the SPECIFIC results, then go to the CU auto issue. Their press release was about aggregate results, if you want the specifics, they're available. It's not like anyone's hiding anything.

Umm that's what I've been saying - specific companies specific cars. It's a giant umbrella.
Level one: American VS European = value to individual buyer to know this stat ZERO.
Level Two: Ford VS Honda = Value to customer ---moderate because people like to feel secure with the company they are buying from.
Level three: Ford Focus VS Honda Civic = Value to know this stat - most relevant --will car catch fir and burn my wife and kids to death or will it likely not. Then you read the reports and then see number 2 and look for history of the company...which one has the roasty toasty past?

If you're so obsessive about cars catching fire, no wonder you don't drive. First off, how often do cars, especially newer ones, just spontaneously catch fire? Even among the cases of the Ford Explorers with the exploding tires, we're looking at a total of about 80 documented cases. Out of the half million or so Explorers that are sold every year, that hardly makes for something that I would lose sleep over. An electrical system problem that can potentially strand me in the middle of nowhere is a more immediate concern (and something that Acura discovered AFTER I had already shelled out $400 and ruined a 4th of July holiday).

Like I keep saying, if you want specifics, they're out there for you to look up. But, that still doesn't change the aggregate defect rate. You want to believe that American cars are unreliable, I'm sure you'll keep finding examples that support your case, but that certainly doesn't support the blanket condemnation that you keep throwing around.

You'll have to prove those stats sorry. Mercedes has scored very poorly for at least 15 years in the Lemon Aid guide. Average is a high point for Mercedes - for that money Average doesn't cut it. Inflated prices don't help either. I may be wrong but Lemon Aid compares cars within given classes. So sports car versus sports car. So the Camero gets a high rating in the lemon aid because of performance versus surveys versus repairs versus re-sale and all that stuff and it gets ranked highly. Because they owner expects high maintenaance and versus other sports cars it does well. That to me is a reasonably fair method of evaluation...They still provide the negative numbers for repairs but it's a good indicator of the cars value. The Bugatti at 1million US is probably a POS reliability wise but not many cars go 0-300KPH in 14 seconds and hit a top speed of over 250MPH. Maintenance versus repair versus driving habits versus age of driver versus WHERE you drive all impact cars...the old joke of being better off having your car built Tuesday to Thursday would be interesting to see the stats there as well.

I have to prove stats? They're out there for the taking if you want to look them up! All of these hypothetical scenarios that you're spinning are the ones that would be difficult to reliably prove in any form.

But that could have been a design issue from the get-go. Small numbers or not we don't know...why are they not listed? Co-production is not limited to JUST both companies making the same car. But this is a minutae arguement anyway. Amercian cars across the board fall apart 50% more often than Japanese cars - if we're going to use the same CR statistic which still isn't very good as generalized statistics go. Sounds like Lutz the incompetant boob is over at GM...ahh that explains it.

Certainly they're(American makers) are getting better as a group and seem to be on the right track according to the following article. Of course I'd expect them to get better...they could not possibly have gotten much worse than they were... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3867085.htm

CU DOES post the coproduced car models separately if you want to look them up. And since you started this post on the subject of lies, how does a higher defect rate mean that "American cars across the board fall apart 50% more often than Japanese cars"? I don't know about you, but here in California I don't see too many cars that just fall apart. Maybe you've been breathing too much of that road salt to tell the difference between something that needs repair versus something that is on the ground in pieces.