 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
2.5L V6.
BTW Asher, you do know that consumer reports doesn't take a satistical sampling right? That's right consumer reports only gets info on people who bother to write in or from recall information which is available to the public (meaning not much) or other public sources. This results in a big skewing of data since most people who don't experience problems don't bother to write reports to complain. |
This makes no sense as an excuse: this would affect all brands equally. Is it just a coincidence that every single Toyota vehicle gets a great reliability record, while most Ford ones get a poor one?
If the skew is universal across the board, and you're comparing only within that set affected by the same skew, the relative comparisons are still rather accurate.
quote:
J D Powers does a much better job of tracking these things by brand and model because they actually do a satistical sampling so their results can be trusted. I know you hate J D Powers because *gasp* they don't agree with your bias but here's the results any way.
Toyota brand has 216 defective vehicles per 100,000 built while Ford brand has 276 defective vehicles per 100,000 built. That means 99.99724% Fords are free of manufacturer's defects while Toyotas are 99.99784% defect free. OMG IT"S SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!11!!!11! |
That's initial quality, silly. That means dick-all in terms of reliability, which is why my numbers (which are from 2004) include only cars from 2001 and older. All cars in their first year are reasonably reliable.
Nice try, though. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Asher my boy. You're cute when you are being illogical. The sampling is nosatistical because it only catches responses from people who feel like writing in.. Consumer Reports is much like an internet poll which doesn't get an accurate cross section of society. The numbers are interesting but not at all correct. |
Oerdin...if all of the brands are affected by people who "only call in if there's a problem", then it's still reasonably accurate. Especially when the samples are so large and the differences so large.
I know statistics and I know that this isn't the ideal way to do it, but it is still accurate. It not only makes sense anecdotally, it makes sense from the people I know who work in the field.
My brother is a mechanical engineer who works for a company in Ontario that designs components of cars for GM, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan. Specifically, while he was a "coop" student, he worked on the air vents of the 2006 Toyota Camry, and the 2005 Pontiac G6.
The test requirements for MTBF between the two brands was incredible.
Feel free to show me reliability statistics that you feel are more accurate and display your opinion. Otherwise, can it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
That list is for initial quality, which has little to no correlation with long-term reliability. |
BUZZZ! Wrong anwser. That survey was the "Dependability" survey which measured problems which occured over the first year of ownership. They also do a long term (3 year study) as well as the intial quality study and a costumer satisfaction study. The numbers are slightly different but the rankings are largely the same in each different study.
Last edited by Oerdin on 02-04-2005 at 09:13
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2005 03:30
|