Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry you don't know the difference between a SURVEY of car buyers and their *expectation* of reliability and actual data on repair statistics.
.
You said, and this is the entirety of your post, "Yep. I put my faith in actual instead of "expected". <shrug>"
If you would actually say something in your post, instead of "Guess how much I know", people might have some idea of what you mean by "actual" knowledge about the future reliability of a car or a group of cars.
So tell us, in plain language, the difference between an "actual" future event and an "expected" future event.
Also, come clean, and tell us exactly which reliability report is based on a survey of car buyers' expectations. Based on your silly childish riddles, I have the impresssion that you think Consumers Reports is flawed. But you refuse to come out and clarify what you are saying.
You're the person here with all the knowledge. Disclose a little bit of it.
You said, and this is the entirety of your post, "Yep. I put my faith in actual instead of "expected". <shrug>"
If you would actually say something in your post, instead of "Guess how much I know", people might have some idea of what you mean by "actual" knowledge about the future reliability of a car or a group of cars.
So tell us, in plain language, the difference between an "actual" future event and an "expected" future event.
Also, come clean, and tell us exactly which reliability report is based on a survey of car buyers' expectations. Based on your silly childish riddles, I have the impresssion that you think Consumers Reports is flawed. But you refuse to come out and clarify what you are saying.
You're the person here with all the knowledge. Disclose a little bit of it.
1. I didn't say actual future event. If you look at ACTUAL recent manufacturer reliability statistics the domestic manufacturers have greatly improved over the past 10+ years.
The entire point is that using actual recent data is a better foundation for a projection of future events than a survey reflecting who knows what time period and other internal biases.
(Like people that had a GM with transmission problems back in 1984)
2. Post #168 specifically mentioned consumer reports. I like some of their surveys...just not this one and have explained what is wrong with using a survey in that manner.
The JD Powers statistics also have some issues but that's a whole other can-o-worms.
Everything else I know is proprietary and won't share but suffice to say that the quality difference between car makers like Toyota and the US manufacturers is shrinking. (Toyota's full sized trucks for example are generally considered to be of worse quality than Ford etc.)
Jtur, if you don't know Mathguy, his "day job" is in writing extended warrenties for cars. So I think he knows whereof he speaks.
CR is a *decent* source of information, it's at least unbiased, but the survey itself is simplistic. You simply list the car you are rating, and fill out a "pimple chart" of yes/no questions - did you have electrical problems? What if you left your lights on overnight, killed your battery - me, I would chalk that up to "operator error" but if someone wants to call that electrical trouble they can.
I think you can count on a real difference between a car CR rates as "excellent" and one they rate as "poor", but if the difference is only one "step" in their scale, I am not certain that means much.
Getting back on topic, I would say that a new, moderately expensive car that you got a good deal on, and paid cash for, *that's* a measure of real success (Mathguy's Z06 'vette)
That's fine for me, because I would never, under any circumstances, buy a new car, for at least three reasons. The first two are obvious---the massive instant depreciation and the high sticker price. The third one is what we've been talking about. There is an abundance of valid data about the reliability of the model year after hundreds of thousands of units have already been driven 150K miles. This is data that could not possibly exist for a "new" car. Neither actual nor expected.
None of this is really relevant to the question of success being measured in new expensive cars, because the practioners of that oplulence are not very likely to drive their new car even 30,000 miles before trading it in on something that will turn even more heads. Even Yugos lasted that long. Some of them.
I guess I am majorly sinning driving an 07 Tahoe, but so be it. This thing is a tank and better than driving some little crap box car, thinking im so smart to drive a clown car, I'll take my Tahoe any day and gladly pay for it too, as it is worth every penny as I see a crumplrd Honda go by on a flat bed truck where the driver most likely died in it, smart people die too.
None of this is really relevant to the question of success being measured in new expensive cars, because the practioners of that oplulence are not very likely to drive their new car even 30,000 miles before trading it in on something that will turn even more heads. Even Yugos lasted that long. Some of them.
I guess I am majorly sinning driving an 07 Tahoe, but so be it. This thing is a tank and better than driving some little crap box car, thinking im so smart to drive a clown car, I'll take my Tahoe any day and gladly pay for it too, as it is worth every penny as I see a crumplrd Honda go by on a flat bed truck where the driver most likely died in it, smart people die too.
Just think. Someday the war will be over (maybe), and fully armored Hummers will be in the hands of civilians, and we can all watch crumpled Tahoes go by on flatbed trucks and speculate about the fate of the occupants of the clown truck.
Simmer, if you'd stay in your own lane and keep it under about 75, you wouldn't be crumpling so many Hondas.
Just think. Someday the war will be over (maybe), and fully armored Hummers will be in the hands of civilians, and we can all watch crumpled Tahoes go by on flatbed trucks and speculate about the fate of the occupants of the clown truck.
Simmer, if you'd stay in your own lane and keep it under about 75, you wouldn't be crumpling so many Hondas.
Heck - some of our troops already have some of those Hummers - equiped with gun turrets and everything!
Just think. Someday the war will be over (maybe), and fully armored Hummers will be in the hands of civilians, and we can all watch crumpled Tahoes go by on flatbed trucks and speculate about the fate of the occupants of the clown truck.
Simmer, if you'd stay in your own lane and keep it under about 75, you wouldn't be crumpling so many Hondas.
I hate having to pull those Honda's and preiuses out of my wheel well, besides unless you are an illegal alien no one drives under 70 in LA.
Heck - some of our troops already have some of those Hummers - equiped with gun turrets and everything!
The H2 is just a Tahoe and the H3 a Silverado
They are not military vehicles, unless you want to shell out $100K for an H1.
I'd rather have a Land Rover for off road
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
