Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver

[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.