Last post on Oct 23, 2006 at 2:11 AM
You are in the Chrysler/Plymouth Voyager, Dodge Caravan
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Caravan, Dodge Grand Caravan, Chrysler Voyager, Plymouth Voyager, Chrysler Town and Country, Van
#191 of 4276 When you aren't happy with the results of a publication's reliability survey...
Apr 20, 2000 (4:23 am)
then attempt to discredit the publication. Usual silliness.
Consumer Reports' survey shows Dodge Grand Caravan transmissions rated below average for reliability through 1995 (that's more recent than 1990, swampcollie; don't you think?). Still waiting to see what happens when more recent years rack up higher mileage. This is not "bashing" or "trashing." It's noting the facts, which some choose to hide themselves from.
Still waiting for someone to give me a cogent reason to doubt the results of the CU survey.
Apr 20, 2000 (4:40 am)
While you may not like consumer reports, I don't put much faith in the EPA either. While you may not like the preferences that the writer have stated, a good deal of what they publish is from the readers polls they perform.
So what do we make of that? It probably demonstrates both extremes. Readers will probably either praise the vehicles or pan them. When I did my survey last year, I faithfully reported on the two vehicles we owned. I have to believe that most readers, if they do the survey will truthfully describe the ownership experience they had. Scientifically, the data is not as good as a random survey, but I'm fairly confident that given the sample population, the data collected is at least accurate.
Since CR does not accept advertising, I really doubt they have much motive to slant the numbers for a particular vehicle in one direction or another.
Since the automakers are required by the federal government to meet certain fuel standards (CAFE, I believe that is Corporate Average Fuel Economy) which I believe is administered by the EPA, I would suspect that they would engineer the vehicles to perform exceptionally well in that test environment. So the flaw with the EPA testing is the test is known and the manf. can prepare to excel at the test, knowing full well that real world mileage will be different. (Kinda like cramming for an exam. You don't really retain anything the day after the test, but you do pass
I don't think CR does the same test, therefore it is not surprising that vehicles test by CR will deviate from the EPA figures. While we would like to believe that every government agency is infallible, I'm not sure you have solid ground to stand to support the assertion that the EPA's test was superior and more accurate to that of CR.
Have you ever achieved, consistently, the EPA figures? Probably not. They simply provide a range you MIGHT expect. (Of course your mileage may vary
Finally, would you like to discuss the details of those failures. Did those Honda transmissions fail at 25K miles or 125K miles? I could say I know of seven brand X cars with transmission failures, but without information about how and when in the lifetime of the vehicle they failed that sort of information posted about any vehicle should be discounted as anecdotal at best.
And I haven't owned a Honda since 1990, but that one was pretty darn bullet proof. My point, I have no axe to grind or decision concerning Honda to defend, I just thought your discussion of Hondas and Consumer Reports was perhaps a bit prejudiced.
#193 of 4276 Ok Carlton, Page 74 of my buyers guide is about digital cameras.
Apr 20, 2000 (11:46 am)
I am looking at the Year 2000 Buying Guide and on page 74, it discusses digital cameras. So tell us what you are reading. However, if you look on page 271 of the same buyers guide I will quote the ENTIRE description of how a vehicle gets a recommendation.
"The Ratings include only cars for which we have recent test results. To earn our recommendation--mark by a (checkmark)-- a model must perform competently in our tests and based on the model's history have at least average predicted reliability. New models that perform competently and, based on the reliability of other models from that maker, whose reliability should be at least average, are marked promising (up arrow). Twins and triplets--essentially similar models sold under different nameplates--are grouped in the charts below; each is marked with a (filled square) typically, we've tested only on eo fthese models. Overall mpg is based on our tests in a range of driving conditions. Tested model notes the items that can affect specific test results."
Now turn to page 280 and you see the posted average reliablity based on trouble spot and year. Compare any vehicle you wish to this average and see if it is above or below average.
Again, I don't think CR is hiding anything, the rationale is posted in black and white.
Please tell us, what does CR have to gain by reporting erroneous numbers. The only revenue the get is from the readers. If the readers have any reason to doubt the veracity of the reports, they would be out of business. THINK about it.
#194 of 4276 tboner, you'll never get any answers to your questions...
Apr 20, 2000 (1:09 pm)
from carleton1, because your questions are logical and rational. carleton1 simply cannot face the facts regarding DC minivan reliability in the 90s, and will post all sorts of amazing silliness in a vain attempt to discredit Consumer Reports. Rational people like you and me will recognize this easily and discount it.
For example, he simply does not understand what CR is saying in the quote he cites in posting #244. What CR is saying is that the charts contain data for the model years 1992 to 1999, and there is no implication that a vehicle's reliability will not be noted if it did not exist for all eight of those years. carleton1's talk about "not following their stated policy" is just his usual red herring, and makes about as much sense as thinking that CR subscriber confusion over the inconsistency in whether a Taurus is a mid-sized or full-sized vehicle has caused the CR survey to reflect negatively on DC minivans.
The reason CR "does not know about" the supposed Honda V-6 transmission problem in 1999 is quite simple: That there weren't enough problems reported to CR to affect the ratings. This is a classic illustration of why you can't go by the anecdotal evidence which carleton1 loves to cite, but have to rely only on statistically significant numbers, including reports from people who have had no problems. carleton1 cannot seem to grasp that concept, I regret to have to say.
#195 of 4276 If he does not answer my questions, that says alot
Apr 20, 2000 (3:28 pm)
The subject says it all.
Back to work, installing servers etc.
#196 of 4276 fuel efficiency
Apr 21, 2000 (1:03 am)
carleton1: I am a little confused at your response to my reply to egawron. Do you like his references better than mine?
As far as fuel efficiency testing, it appears that you like the EPA results better than CRs and therefore the EPA is accurate and CR is not only inaccurate but biased. Do you know something about the EPA test that you would share with the rest of us so we will see the light. My recall is that when the EPA test was originated in the '70s by an act of Congress requiring that it be done on a dynamometer simulating travel on a road and results calculated based on tail-pipe emissions. As a result the owners I know were not surprised that they did not get as good of results on the road as the EPA test reported. Maybe someone in the auto industry can explain if the EPA test has changed and if not why it would be better to test on a dynamometer measuring emissions than on the road measuring fuel consumed.
#197 of 4276 Yes, the EPA calculates based on
Apr 21, 2000 (3:00 am)
You will need a PDF reader, but it is free, to read this document.
I think the passage that is probably most telling in about the EPA's procedure is the following:
"This formula is the equivalent of multiplying the fuel consumed per mile during the city test by 55 percent and multiplying the fuel consumed per my during the highway test by 45 percent and adding the result. SINCE WE DO NOT ACTUALLY MEASURE THE FUEL CONSUMED, we must perform the inverse and divide the fuel economy proportionately. This is known as a harmonic mean (sometimes called harmonic averaging)."
Just to simplify harmonic mean if you drive 100 miles in the city and get 10MPG (10 gallons consumed) then drive 100 Miles on the highway and get 20MPG (5 gallons consumed) your average fuel consumption is NOT 15MPG, but 13.3 MPG. You used 15 gallons to go 200 miles -> 13.3 MPG.
Now call me silly, but it seems that to get better EPA fuel economy results, you could "tune" the emissions.
(The light bulb goes on in my head...) This may explain why Ford has so many Low Emission Vehicle SUV's. Perhaps, given the EPA testing methodology, this results in higher EPA fuel economy ratings for these vehicles.
However, I believe this technique translates poorly into real world economy.
#198 of 4276 Please answer the question
Apr 21, 2000 (3:07 am)
You have yet to give a rationale concerning the possible motive of CR to bias test results.
You have yet to give a cogent reason to doubt the veracity of the readers surveys.
Therefore, I must conclude that you simply have an axe to grind.
Since I clearly stated what CR states as there policy concerning vehicles that do not have a history covering all of those years the burden is on you to prove your assertion that CR is biased.
Remember, in America you must be proven guilty. I do not tolerate vague, baseless accusations.
#199 of 4276 Ok, now looking at April Issue
Apr 21, 2000 (3:22 am)
No where does it state in the criteria that the vehicle had to have data for the entire range. They simply are making a reliability judgement. They have taken the average of ALL responses and compared the responses of each type of vehicle to the yearly averages.
Are you saying the reliability figures are inaccurate? Or are you just upset your van is not on the best bet list. My van is not on the Good Bet list either, but I don't doubt the veracity of the figures.
#200 of 4276 I also notice you have not yet answered my questions
Apr 21, 2000 (11:44 am)
You did not answer my questions concerning the possible motives.
You have not yet provided any details concerning your seven Honda failures.
I guess you just have an axe to grind.
Sorry, I'm not yet convinced.