Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[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.

[kexodusc]

Thank you so much, Topspeed. Someone had to say it.

C'mon gents, break it up, shake hands...every week you guys square off in debate after debate using big words most of us common folk don't understand. You want to fight each other? I ENCOURAGE it...go ahead....but just think...e-mail would be more private and allow you to say what was really on your minds.

It's somewhat discouraging to see 2 of the most helpful posters on the forum constantly engaged in a battle of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, Paradigm vs.metal tweeters suck...you get my point.

I would like to know...was there ever a time when you two got along? Which post started the big rift?

Cheers guys!

[RGA]

Thank you so much, Topspeed. Someone had to say it.

C'mon gents, break it up, shake hands...every week you guys square off in debate after debate using big words most of us common folk don't understand. You want to fight each other? I ENCOURAGE it...go ahead....but just think...e-mail would be more private and allow you to say what was really on your minds.

It's somewhat discouraging to see 2 of the most helpful posters on the forum constantly engaged in a battle of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, Paradigm vs.metal tweeters suck...you get my point.

I would like to know...was there ever a time when you two got along? Which post started the big rift?

Cheers guys!

Sure we get along - just not on audio related topics - no crime in that. We do both agree that Tom Baker was the best Doctor Who - I think Wooch still values LP's - we agree conceptually on what makes the best home theater.

But agreeing is hardly fun. It is more fun to find one part of someone's arguement and then blow it out of proportion so you can make this thread go on and on. I attempted the out several posts back. I've made my points to Topspeed on the way stats are manipulated or to general to be of use...I'm correct. The funny thing is basically after 20 years the American have caught the Europeans...considering every says how lousy the European cars are - I find the entire pro American car stance rather humourous. The Americans are great cars because they have caught and are a virtuyal tie with the crappily built European cars? Now that's funny.

[RGA]

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

Umm had to sell it to get a student loan...I've owned three before the age of 27. I am not a car guy...as such I care more about reliability than 0-60 ratings.

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

No I complained about the generalization of lumping car companies together. I said at the outset that the 20-18 stat serves what to YOU if YOU were going out to buy a car. It still doesn't help you if you're going to buy a Focus vs a VW Golf. You need to know the sepecific cars. I have not EVER defended European Cars except to say that we don't know from those stats WHICH car companies are lousy and which are not. I used BMW as an example not a set in stone fact that they were better. But if the AVERAGE is 20 defects than anyone with a basic understanding of averages KNOWS that some cars are going to be lower fewer than 20 and some higher than 20. Same goes for the American Cars for that matter some are higher than 18 and lower than 18. That's not a generalization it's a fact.

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.

Are you in league...Never mentioned the Marquis?

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.

You have evidence of Jaguar in the top 5 in the world? Not judging by CR or the Lemon Aid reports - and even if - Hypothetically, it were true then that would illustrate my point above that some European cars fair better than the 20 figure now doesn't it?

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.

Yes - I never said Japanese run their plants...Japanese have had over the last 20 years more mobile plants better QC better design...American are copying or trying to their model...good - never argued the point i even provided a link which says the same thing.

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.

25% does not mean they own Suzuki...that requires 50.1% And when the Sprint was made what roughly a decade ago. This practice is not new. Swift was out and people were buying them up GM wants a piece of that and comes out witht he Sprint...same exact car but with a GM body...it's a Japanese car designed by Suzuki.

You do however bring up an intersting point though that so many companies are now bought and sold merged that lines today are very blurred. Hell one article was complaining about some Japanese cars that advertised "Made in America" but every single componant in the car was not made in the US but Mexico Canada china or elsewhere...so they were upset with the wording. There was a Hitachi Laserdisc player that was a clone of the my Pioneer LCD 1091 with Hitachi's silver box instead of blakc and Hitachi's logo instead of pioneer...looking inside some of these various players you'll see Sanyo chips in them. So that is my point. What is a Sprint? Japanese or American...how did CR decide? Lemon Aid mentioned 3 RECOMMENDED Chryslers with a snide remark "The three best cars Chrysler never built." They didn't but because it's owned by Chrysler did CR count them as American.

This was my only complaint with the entire article was what are they talking about when they say American/European/Japanese or Korean Mexican for that matter. Is it company ownership? Is it who designed it? Is it where the parts came from? Is it where it was physically BUILT? If the latter than Honda Civic is an American Car...Jag is European...if it's ownership the Honda is Japanese and Jag is American. You can't have it both ways and if you want it both ways you better tell the reader...in either case it was not done in that article. It's like me saying that Audio Note is 50% better than YBA. Great...how so? Which products? Statistics ALWAYS need contexts that are useful.

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.

Again I'm not saying EVER that European cars don't have recalls or even Japanese cars. I remember a few years a go a huge recall on seatbelts...Toyota, Ford and a few others all used the same seatbelts so all cars using the seatbelts had the same problems...just like if that Sanyo chip was defective you would see Sony and maybe 12 other companies have the same problem. Arcam and Audio Note use a Sony Transport in some of their cd players whereas Sony doesn't even use their own transports in their own models. My point about the Delco battery earlier which was in a Honda and not their own GM car.

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.

I had a problem with car and driver because they reviewed a Honda Civic and saying a plus was their relibaility was superior to American counterparts and they listed Cavelier. THEN, flipping over to Cavelier review they say it's caught up to the Japanese -recommended - Which the F! is it? Whichever pays the most advertising? Must have been a tie that issue. CR and Lemon Aid are information tools for reliability...that's ALL I would use them for. Certainly not as road test evaluators. Then I would go to car guys like yourself or C/D for opinions which is the best 70k sports car.

Everyone makes a lemon never said otherwise...specific stats helps you play your odds. In the Civic class nothing is going to blow your mind performance wise - gas mileage, nimbleness, features, comfort and naturally RELIABLY getting you from A to B. CR and Lemon-Aid show you the odds. Both actually are very close in opinions on most cars - probably 85%+ but L-A provides more details about other aspects unknown to CR readers. I suggest it would behoove people to cross-reference BOTH before making a used/New car buy. Same way I like t read several reviews of audio componants not JUST one source like you claim I do. It's interesting that class C recommended componants get rubbished in the Brit press and great stuff from Britain doesn't even get a review in Stereophile.

OT
The Sugden A21a I use as an example of why you SHOULD NOT JUST read Stereophile and base your purchase solely on what they say. I spoke to the reviewer who finally did a review of the A21a and he said it was the class leader of integrated amps. that amp had been number one for a decade in Britain and that amp was sold in North America as well. But Stereophile readers would have bought Arcam MF Creek Rotel Bryston integrateds off the reviews. Then in 2003 14 years after the A21a update in 1989 Stereohile says ohh yes this was the best amp in it's class. How the hell can they MISS the longest running amplifier in history - the best one it's class to boot - and then when they FINALLY review it they don't even give it a full review...no I had to ask the editor himself to get the answer. And sopmething tells me you won't see it in their recommended componants listing either.

As for Peter...I give him the benefit of the doubt because based off the sound his process is the correct one - to my ear ... whether the techies like it or not that's fine let them keep upgrading every six months for all I care.

[topspeed]

Are you in league...Never mentioned the Marquis?

Check your post on 3/30 "GOOD BUYS

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

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

Ford: Escort, Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis (a Mazda spinoff and rear drive reliability) "
There you go.

You have evidence of Jaguar in the top 5 in the world? Not judging by CR or the Lemon Aid reports - and even if - Hypothetically, it were true then that would illustrate my point above that some European cars fair better than the 20 figure now doesn't it?

It was JD Power's IQS but damned if I can find it. Actually, it illustrates that Jaguar is NOT a Ford as you proclaim, otherwise it would be on the side of a road burning in a ditch, right? Ford improved Jaguar, period.

% does not mean they own Suzuki...that requires 50.1% And when the Sprint was made what roughly a decade ago. This practice is not new. Swift was out and people were buying them up GM wants a piece of that and comes out witht he Sprint...same exact car but with a GM body...it's a Japanese car designed by Suzuki.

News flash: Suzuki's 2 latest models, the Verona and Forenza (who names these things?) are rebadged Korean engineered, designed, and built Daewoos. All three are under the GM umbrella. Make no mistake, 25% may not mean you own it but it sure as hell means you pull the strings. Nothing goes on at Suzuki without Rick Wagoner's stamp of approval.

This is my only complaint with the entire article was what are they talking about when they say American/European/Japanese or Korean Mexican for that matter. Is it company ownership? Is it who designed it? Is it where the parts came from? Is it where it was physically BUILT? If the latter than Honda Civic is an American Car...Jag is European...if it's ownership the Honda is Japanese and Jag is American. You can't have it both ways and if you want it both ways you better tell the reader...in either case it was not done in that article. It's like me saying that Audio Note is 50% better than YBA. Great...how so? Which products? Statistics ALWAYS need contexts that are useful.

The US government dictates that for an automobile to be classified as "Made in the USA" it must contain at least 70% domestic content. The Honda Accord is "made in America." The Chrysler Crossfire is actually assembled (not 'made') in America but is a rebodied previous gen. M/B SLK, w/ the M/B engine, tranny, electrics, and even the same dash board.

Then in 2003 14 years after the A21a update in 1989 Stereohile says ohh yes this was the best amp in it's class. How the hell can they MISS the longest running amplifier in history - the best one it's class to boot - and then when they FINALLY review it they don't even give it a full review.

This is why Stereophile is a joke. How can one person or even a group of "professional reviewers" proclaim ANY one item as "best in class" in a field as subjective as audio? Lunacy. Do they have my ears, my preferences, my speakers, my room, etc.? Best in class? Whatever...

[RGA]

Check your post on 3/30 "GOOD BUYS

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

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

Ford: Escort, Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis (a Mazda spinoff and rear drive reliability) "
There you go.

This is why Stereophile is a joke. How can one person or even a group of "professional reviewers" proclaim ANY one item as "best in class" in a field as subjective as audio? Lunacy. Do they have my ears, my preferences, my speakers, my room, etc.? Best in class? Whatever...

The quotes under Good Buys are all from Lemon-Aid not me just so you know - including what was in brackets. I know the escort in 1992 or so had some sort of Mazda link because the car itself was a vast improvement over to prior models (I had the 1990 escort which was just about as bad as my Grand Am) - By 100,000Km I only had the transmission to replace and the driver's seat(it broke - so you had to sit kinda side-ways), wheels, bearings, front end, head gasket, window roller(WTF), air conditioner. It was only after being beat up a hill by my friend's Hyundai Pony that really was the kicker to sell. Until the Honda, I thought all those repairs were just the cost of owning a vehicle so get used to it. The Japanese prove time and again in any stat anyone here wants to useor imply that they are better than EVERYONE else on an overall average of fewer defects fewer Break-Downs(which I call "falling apart" but some are too stupid to imply the difference you have to spell it out like they're 4 years old). That don't mean some guys Acura won't be an equal pile of crap or that you won't get half a million trouble free miles out of a Chevy Cavelier. On average however you're more LIKELY to have more success with the Acura or Toyota than any American Car.

Jag is better OK, I can accept it - of course they couldn't get much worse worse. All cars have improved over the last 20 years - for the bloody money they should bloody well improve no? Well except the Ford Focus and Explorer perhaps. Something tells me that if you look you'll see the same drive train in the New Grand Am as the 1994 version I had which was probably the same as the one a decade earlier. The incompetant trunk lay-out and very cheap plastic inside is similar...lots more cheap plastic body must be worth that extra 5k - I'll look at 2004 rating of the Grand Am in 2007 and see if they've improved. Reliability ratings unfortunately have a lag-time in order to assess anything usefull. So instead of the plastic falling off(ie; having problems via defect) right off the plant they've managed to ensure that less of them fall off(ie are a defect) off the line. Interestingly, they can't catch it off the line at 25,000km of use.

[Woochifer]

EVERYONE else on an overall average of fewer defects fewer Break-Downs(which I call "falling apart" but some are too stupid to imply the difference you have to spell it out like they're 4 years old).

And others are too self-righteous to differentiate between fact and exaggeration.

[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.

[RGA]

But, for argument's sake I'll entertain your question. The simple answer is no, of course not.

The only relevant answer to American car BUYERS. The average numbers are ffor feel good issues.

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.

Yes you could so could I...again which is more relevant to the actual BUYER? You and I and most people with any BASIC understanding of stats know this. Many peoiple read an article of gross generalizaions that serve a buyer absolutely NO GOOD whatsoever may believe - lots' of ignorant people that that means they're safe buying an American car reliability wise and not safe buying a BMW. I used Focus to illustrate that no in fact going off that stat alone is not safe as the Focus is the most recalled car since the 1980 model Lemon Aid mentioned...That is why the stat doesn't help anyone.

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.

Know it is you who perceives that I'm attacking American cars...You're first question? You tell me? If you buy a company you're not going to stick your head in the door and make changes that need to be made or accidentally make changes that don't need to be made...it's never happened. Ford execs didn't go in and make any changes to Mazda? Are you sure? There are no straws...the lines between what constitutes an American car today and what it did 50 years ago is hardly the same. Lemon Aid made the point about three Chryslers "The best 3 cars Chrysler never built." So do they count as Amercan cars? I said the same in my response to Topspeed. You can't have it both ways...you have to define for me what consitutes an Amercian car and what consitutes a European or Japanese car. If Saab is European because it's made in Sweden then Honda is American because it's made in America - or Canada - and oif we go by parts? Then we're in bigger trouble - because it will be a 13 year old girl in Mexico for all we know. BTW because you are generally humourless what "for all we know" means is that I don't know nor am I suggesting that this is the case in any way.

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.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand that the article is suggesting an entire industry trend but it still doesn't say anything of value not then not now. Especially not now when they are a virtual tie. The trend is helpful to exactly who?

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).

No I do drive - I just don't have a vehicle because to get a student loan you must own a car valued at under $5k. But you can not get a car loan on used cars more than I think 3 years old. You need a personal loan - whcih they won't give you unless you're employed...I'm in school so unless I buy a beater it's the bus - I'd rather buy good stereo equipment and take the bus than buy a wreck. If I was mechanically inclined a beater would be an option otherwise ...

Ohh and there are 200 deaths and 700 injuries related to those explorers flipping over due to the tires. And those numbers are not all in yet. Interesting that the same tire on other vehicles DON'T have the problems.

"The complaint alleges that the Ford Explorer, the best-selling SUV in history, is a defective vehicle based on an unreasonable tendency to roll over. To conceal this dangerous condition, plaintiffs allege, Ford recommended that tires used on Explorers be underinflated, which had the consequence of increasing the likelihood of tire separation."What's at issue in this case is constant defects that caused constant risks," explained plaintiffs' attorney Elizabeth Cabraser. "Consumers thought they were getting a car that would not roll over, a tire that wouldn't come apart."

In addition to the federal lawsuit, the Ford Explorer has been the target of hundreds of product liability lawsuits. In suits against it, Firestone claimed the design of the Explorer played a role in the accidents. In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it found that the Ford Explorer was no more rollover-prone than other SUVs. Many plaintiffs' attorneys and vehicle experts disagree with this conclusion, and litigation against Ford has continued.
Ford has refused to publicly disclose how many lawsuits it has been forced to defend because of defect allegations leveled against the Explorer. Ford has prevailed in certain cases. In others, Fort has entered into confidential settlements. Ford will not reveal how many cases have been settled out of court. The settlements have cost Ford millions. In one case, a woman who suffered a spinal cord injury that left paralyzed her from the neck down after a two-door Ford Explorer crashed received, according to press reports, between $20 million and $35 million.
Allegations of Wrongful Conduct Made Against Ford
The Ford Explorer is the successor to the Ford Bronco II. In the late 1980s, Consumer Reports published an article that was critical of the Bronco II's safety performance and advised consumer to avoid purchasing the Bronco II. The Explorer was introduced to the U.S. market in 1990.
Plaintiffs allege that Ford's internal testing revealed that the Explorer, like the Bronco II, had significant handling and stability defects. As alleged in the master complaint (paragraphs 64-66) in the federal lawsuit:
The testing showed the Explorer was prone to rollovers when equipped with tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure. An internal Ford Test Report dated November 25, 1988, showed, for example, that the Explorer lifted two wheels off the ground while cornering at 55 miles per hour due to a combination of the vehicle's high center of gravity, its fully inflated tires, and the suspension system structure. In so-called "J-turn testing," the Explorer rolled over in 5 of 12 tests, while the Chevrolet Blazer (the Explorer's main competitor) and even the problematic Bronco II experienced no similar rollovers.

In a June 15, 1989, internal memo to Ford management, Ford engineers recommended eight design changes to address the rollover problem and improve the safety of the Explorer. . . . Making these changes would have taken ten months or more, which would have delayed the planned launch of the Explorer. Ford management directed the engineers to make only those minor changes that would not affect production deadlines. Ford understood that such minor changes would not correct the stability and handling problems identified during the Explorer's development." (Vehicle injuries).


No this is the reason I don't exactly trust Ford for my safety...not because it WILL happen but that Ford doesn't care if it does.

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.

Compared to Japanese cars even the article you presented confirms that American cars are 50% less reliable than Japanese cars. 12 times 50% is 6 = 18. blanket condemnation...heck these are the numbers you proivided right?

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.

SO now CR is wrong in California? The have 50% more problems according to the stats...California is immune...What is the Terminator fixing all the cars? 50% more defects. Oh surely this was not all about initial runs off the line...oh I thought we were talking about reliability. Designing something to last 90 days versus something that will last 5 -10 years...Ahh now we need a whole new set of stats...the used car guides.

Leaf through CR and Lemon Aid and choose the biggest selling categories familiy sedans say and see how they compare of 3-5 year old model results. Longitudinal studies mean something...more than initial tests. Perhaps why I should not blame CR for saying the Grand Am was good. After all for the first few thousand K nothing went wrong - and their reviewers probably found the same...then a few years later we got a better idea as to it going from excellent to poor.

[JSE]

Ohh and there are 200 deaths and 700 injuries related to those explorers flipping over due to the tires. And those numbers are not all in yet. Interesting that the same tire on other vehicles DON'T have the problems.

"The complaint alleges that the Ford Explorer, the best-selling SUV in history, is a defective vehicle based on an unreasonable tendency to roll over. To conceal this dangerous condition, plaintiffs allege, Ford recommended that tires used on Explorers be underinflated, which had the consequence of increasing the likelihood of tire separation."What's at issue in this case is constant defects that caused constant risks," explained plaintiffs' attorney Elizabeth Cabraser. "Consumers thought they were getting a car that would not roll over, a tire that wouldn't come apart."

.

Actually Ford and Firestone are both at fault on this one. The Firestone tires were defective and had problems regardless of what vehicle they were on. The ocurrence rate was higher with the Ford Explorer due to the vehicle's design defect. Just about every SUV or high center of gravity vehicle with the defective Firestone tires on them had the same issues just not at the same rate. Both companies are being sued and both are paying out the wazoo right now.

I work for a very large auto insurance company and both Ford and Firestone are paying back my company and others for our payments toward these accidents.

Fact is, Fireston's tire's were defective and fell apart regardless of what air pressure they were run at. Would a tire low on pressure be more prone to fail, yes, but Ford's recc. to run the tires at lower pressures in reality had nothing to do with it. 99.99999% of people out there look at the side of their tire for the recc. tire pressure. However, that point is being raised and use against Ford with success.


JSE

[RGA]

Actually Ford and Firestone are both at fault on this one. The Firestone tires were defective and had problems regardless of what vehicle they were on. The ocurrence rate was higher with the Ford Explorer due to the vehicle's design defect. Just about every SUV or high center of gravity vehicle with the defective Firestone tires on them had the same issues just not at the same rate. Both companies are being sued and both are paying out the wazoo right now.

I work for a very large auto insurance company and both Ford and Firestone are paying back my company and others for our payments toward these accidents.

Fact is, Fireston's tire's were defective and fell apart regardless of what air pressure they were run at. Would a tire low on pressure be more prone to fail, yes, but Ford's recc. to run the tires at lower pressures in reality had nothing to do with it. 99.99999% of people out there look at the side of their tire for the recc. tire pressure. However, that point is being raised and use against Ford with success.
JSE

I wasn't taking Firestone off the hook. It sounds to me that both put out out a faulty product and when you combine two together you get a disaster. Both are being sued you are correct because both are likely equally responsible or partially responsible. Plus, many companies will rather pay-off because it saves them the battle.

As a snide aside:
It's hard to belive Firestone would FORGET how to deign a SAFE tire after 95 years of successful tires. I'd say the same for for Ford but then I can't point to proof they've ever known how to build SAFE cars. -- Yes this is a Jab ---joke people

[Woochifer]

Know it is you who perceives that I'm attacking American cars...You're first question? You tell me?

RGA's ORIGINAL QUOTE: But hey people buy American cars for some reason - it sure has nothing to do with reliability.

Wooch's ORIGINAL RESPONSE: Yeah, and people buy European cars for some reason as well, even though their reliability now ranks at the bottom.

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

And then that set off an avalanche of Lemon Aid quotes and mangling of statistical concepts on your part. Just in case you forgot, you began this whole exchange with a GENERALITY. And I responded with a GENERALITY that contradicted what you asserted. How this sets off all these other nonsequiters in your head is anyone's guess.

BTW because you are generally humourless what "for all we know" means is that I don't know nor am I suggesting that this is the case in any way.

We'll let that underhanded statement stand on its own. Where you were going with that, who knows.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I understand that the article is suggesting an entire industry trend but it still doesn't say anything of value not then not now. Especially not now when they are a virtual tie. The trend is helpful to exactly who?

Why are you now so concerned about who the trend is helpful for, when you started this whole thing with a sweeping generalization in the first place? Who was it helpful to when you made your initial comment about American cars?

SO now CR is wrong in California? The have 50% more problems according to the stats...California is immune...What is the Terminator fixing all the cars? 50% more defects. Oh surely this was not all about initial runs off the line...oh I thought we were talking about reliability. Designing something to last 90 days versus something that will last 5 -10 years...Ahh now we need a whole new set of stats...the used car guides.

It really gets amusing to see how you twist things around to avoid having to take responsibility for the reckless exaggerations and abuses of wordage that you perpetrate in some of your responses. All I was pointing out was that there's a HUGE difference between something that needs REPAIR (which is what reliability indices measure) versus something that FALLS APART (which is a physical state in which something was in one piece but is no longer). How you now get this into a diatribe that implies that CR is wrong in Cali or that it implies immunity is a pretty wide leap of illogic even by the standards you've established on this thread. You were saying that American cars FALL APART 50% more often than Japanese cars. You're welcome to cite a source that spells that out, but it certainly wasn't CU that said that.