Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Would You Avoid a Manufacturer Because of Bad Public Policy?
56 messages, Last post on Mar 12, 2007 at 7:37 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 13, 2006 1:22 pm) And CR doesn't count. Really...and who decides this? As the old saying goes, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." I would certainly consider evidence to the contrary, but it has to go deeper than anecdotal stories from friends and relatives. If we are going to use anecdotal experiences to "create reality," I must say that the experiences of my friends and relatives supports the reliability of Toyotas and Hondas. Meanwhile, my wife's 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier had the air conditioning compressor die at 50,000 miles, and the engine itself died at 113,000 miles. My parent's 1999 Buick Park Avenue just had its 3.8 V-6 ruined by the infamous leaking intake-head gasket at 107,000 miles. snakeweasel: Tell that to my sister, I don't think she ever had a Toyota that went more than 30K miles before something major went on it. Of course she states that they are the best cars ever made. Perception creates its own reality. And my dad just asked me for information on the new Buick Lucerne. His "perception" is that GM still makes long-lasting cars, although his "reality" tells a different story. My mother-in-law's 1999 Chevrolet Malibu features a heater fan that doesn't work on the first two settings, the alternator has failed, and she has had other problems with the car. But she is still interested in the new-generation Malibu. Anecdotal evidence cuts both ways, which is why we need third-party data. If there is evidence that is superior to that gathered by Consumer Reports, I'd consider it. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Nov 20, 2006 2:55 pm) 1) My personal belief as a GM owner, is that Toyota makes better products. PERIOD. I would attribute it to three reasons: On the procurement end, they are far more concerned with defect-free parts from their suppliers and for developing long-term relationships with their sellers. GM's buyers are looking for price. I see this constantly in their RFPs for parts. On the manufacturing end, they have better manufacturing systems. They try to make it right the first time and are constantly changing their assembly lines to find perfection. Finally, their employees are more motivated to turn out good vehicles. My father and several family members as well as a number of in-laws have worked for GM over the years. The stories I have heard is that they do enough to stay out of trouble. 2) Since Toyota owners EXPECT that their cars will last longer, they perform the NECESSARY MAINTENANCE more often. So many domestic owners do NOT perform even the most BASIC repairs on a timely basis. Head gaskets do not generally fail in a given week. In most cases, there is clear evidence of leaking for MONTHS before there is outright failure. In my 1996 Ciera, the head gasket started showing evidence of leaking about 12 months ago so I replaced it before the leak got worse. Why let an engine FAIL when a $400 repair will keep it going for years? A co-worker had a Crown Vic in mint condition and let his engine fail because he wouldn't do the $500 in required repairs. It make NO sense to me. (For the record, rubber gaskets on 12 year old Toyotas also fail.) By the way, a GM heater fan motors lasts about 75k miles. It is a $225 repair with labor at many shops. It is disappointing that the same parts that failed on a 1980s model still fails at the same regularity on a 2004 model but that is what got GM where they are at now. I am convinced that if people would take the time to maintain their vehicles, a lot fewer people would need replacements so often. 3) Personally, if I wanted to increase satisfaction with a particular model, I would extend the warranty on the entire product to 100k miles. With one CAVEAT. If you want the extended warranty, you need to bring the car in every 15k miles RELIGIOUSLY at which point, the required maintenance would be performed at a REASONABLE price. That way, you can replace the parts most likely to fail on a timely basis avoiding the usual breakdowns in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Nov 20, 2006 2:55 pm) I do seeing that I am asking you for your proof and I don't trust CR any further than I could throw a bull elephant. Seeing that your post doesn't give any I rest my case.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 20, 2006 4:07 pm) You've got to make a case before you can rest it.  As I said, if there is evidence superior to the reliability ratings compiled by Consumer Reports, I will consider it. So far, none has been forthcoming. Anecdotal evidence is all that has been offered to make the case, and I think that I've pretty well countered it with my anecdotal evidence. The inherent back-and-forth nature of anecdotal evidence is why it is best to rely on data systematically collected by third parties. As I said, if there is any evidence that is proven to be superior to that collected by Consumer Reports, I will consider it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Nov 20, 2006 4:14 pm) I rest my case.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 20, 2006 4:16 pm) That is not evidence. That is an anecdote. You have not supported your claims that: 1. the data collected by Consumer Reports is inherently flawed; and 2. that the image of superior reliability enjoyed by certain marques rests solely on the mistaken perception of misguided owners.
|
|
|
Replying to: jlawrence01 (Nov 20, 2006 3:47 pm) As far as I'm concerned, a Buick is a long-lasting car and I'd have absolutely no reservations about buying a Lucerne. My girlfriend's LaCrosse has been excellent and I'd probably have to set out to deliberately destroy my 1988 Park Avenue to kill it. It's amazing how many surving LeSabres, Electras, and Park Avenues of this era I still see on the road long after many others, both foreign and domestic, from that time have bit the dust.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Nov 20, 2006 4:20 pm) 1. the data collected by Consumer Reports is inherently flawed; 1.) Its not a statistical sampling as they only survey their readers. 2.) They have a history of rating the exact same thing (but with different badges) differently. 3.) They have rated second rate items as winners of their tests while not even reporting on what everyone else considers the best. 4.) Think about it, does your subscription price really pay all of CR's expenses? 5.) I am sworn to secrecy on. 2. that the image of superior reliability enjoyed by certain marques rests solely on the mistaken perception of misguided owners. JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study Results shows about 1/3 problems per car between the industry average and those so called superior reliability. It also shows less than .25 problems per car between "poorly rated cars and the industry average. Basically a car near the bottom of the reliability list has an average of about 2.5 while those with superior reliability has about 2. Big difference there isn't it?
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 21, 2006 7:11 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Nov 21, 2006 5:36 am) before you pull the trigger I'd wait for the 08' CTS, and test drive that first.  Rocky |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Would You Avoid a Manufacturer Because of Bad Public Policy?
