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
Smart Shopper Comments: Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings
674 messages, Last post on Sep 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
Replying to: BambuListener (Mar 03, 2009 3:49 pm) You reason like this: because we don't have the number that represents what "average" is, nor "how much below average the failure rate is" therefore one cannot make a decision as to whether it is rational to avoid a given vehicle. That is not what I "reason" at all. I said nothing about what rational decision someone might make about a car purchase based on survey results. There are many factors that might enter into that decision. And often decisions are made with incomplete data. But that's not what this was about--not until you changed the subject in your last post, anyway. It was about the incorrect application of statistics, and making correlations (not decisions, but correlations, two different things). Since you either don't understand what I am talking about there or choose to ignore what I'm talking about, I'll simply stop talking/typing about it. You are forgetting about one very important aspect of decision-making, though: significance. Suppose I am choosing between two cars (let's try to keep this discussion at least somewhat related to cars, OK?) and they each have Characteristic X. Suppose there is no doubt that Car A is superior in this characteristic compared to Car B. We would say that, in the absence of other information, I would choose Car A, right? But what if Car A's advantage in Characteristic X were insignificant? For example, suppose Characteristic X is interior volume. Car A has 95 cubic feet. Car B has 94.9 cubic feet. In the big picture, who cares? Or what if Characteristic X is "availability of a maroon interior". Car A is available with a maroon interior. Car B is not. Car A is superior to Car B in that regard. Yet I don't even LIKE maroon interiors, so that advantage has no significance to me. Significance is one reason why it's important to know what Average, Above Average, and Below Average really mean before making assumptions about them ("GOOD" vs. "BAD" for example), or comparing single examples to them... or making decisions based on them. And I would hope that anyone who looks at CR's reliability survey, or ANY reliability survey, doesn't make a decision on a car based only on that data, i.e. in the absence of any other information. The reason I was wondering why you would own a five-year-old Hyundai is because of some comments you made a few posts back, such as: It's just that in picking cars, I try not to pick cars of average reliability - but better than average. and, quoting a CR report you found online (bolding was yours): "the average Hyundai of five years and older is among the least reliable." So why would someone like you who puts store into CR's surveys want to own a five-year-old Hyundai? Especially a model that CR's survey results say is prone to decline in reliability beyond year 5? Would it be a rational decision to keep it, knowing what you know about CR's survey data on Hyundais and the Elantra in particular? |
|
|
Replying to: BambuListener (Mar 03, 2009 3:49 pm) So, what if Honda customers are five times as likely to complain about problems with their cars than Hyundai customers and Hyundai ends up with above average ratings - even though (hypothetically) Hondas are, in fact, more reliable? You go for "above average" and you lose. The variations are virtually endless and a resolution resorting to technical points of game theory or statistics is unlikely. I think we all win if we just move on.  tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Mar 03, 2009 6:32 pm) But that's exactly what the original argument was over - how to make a rational decision about a specific car (Elantra 2000). The subsequent rabbit hole of statistical discussion was your attempt to justify a claim that CR (and JD Powers) survey results should be dismissed as a consideration. Fact is, that what interested the OP was addressed best by how to make a rational decision - and that included in my opinion, survey results from respected organizations devoted to addressing just this kind of need. Surprisingly, you objected to this rather commonsensical and indeed orthodox recommendation; consequently you were reduced to arguing increasingly tenuous and unsupportable arguments based on an incomplete understanding of statistics and decision-making algorithms. Backy : You are forgetting about one very important aspect of decision-making, though: significance. [example of interior volume and color as being insignificant]. I most certainly am not forgetting that. Quite the opposite. I cited for the OP the very significant areas of concern where the 2000 Elantra had the worst ratings: transmission, drive system, body hardware or below average (engine, minor). I don't know about you, but transmission and drive system are about as major as you get. Which consideration was also a factor for me in picking the 2004 Elantra. You are puzzled about how I could pick an Elantra 2004 given that CR pronounced older Hyundais as among the least reliable? Easy peasy. I look to individual ratings for particular models, particular years and the significance of areas of concern (see significance?). Perhaps the majority of old Hyundais are unreliable - but I look for exceptions. Indeed, older Elantras (including the 2000, don't rise above average), but the 2004 DOES. Bingo. The overall score for the 2004 Elantra is "above average". Further, the significant areas: transmission, engine, drive system, fuel, electrical, exhaust (I live in California) - were all above average. Only in body paint trim and audio did they do worse than average, which are not areas of significance to me. So I picked a car that was ABOVE AVERAGE. Unlike the 2000 Elantra. Lesson - look at a specific car... that way you don't commit boners like plunking for a Honda, only to discover that a particular model has catastrophic problems with transmission (ha!)... I don't have that problem - I take a careful look at all the ratings. So that's how I came to pick the Elantra 2004. As to the post by the other person about Honda owners possibly being 5 times more likely to complain than Hyundai owners... why would that ever be the case? If we were to accept such peculiar concerns as reality, then I guess we could NEVER make any comparisons between brand reliability (hey, Yugo owners happen to be super critical, OK). No way to compare a GM product to a Toyota product. Or any other brand. Neat trick - and would completely obliterate the need for any survey or the existence of CR and JD Powers. Somehow, that's not how reality works. There are excellent reasons why reliability surveys work. Anyhow, I can take it or leave it as to whether it makes sense to pursue this further - but I thought the whole point of this forum "Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings" was to examine just such issues... but what do I know. Either way, fine with me.
|
|
|
Replying to: PatMatHat (Mar 06, 2009 6:53 pm) tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
|
|
Replying to: PatMatHat (Mar 06, 2009 6:53 pm) Please give us the # of my post in which I said that--plus the direct quote from that post would be handy also. Thanks. As you seem to like mis-stating other people's posts, I am done with this particular thread. In closing, I will say you did have one advantage over me when it came to buying your 2004 Elantra. You were able to buy it used, with a known, long-term relilability record as published by CR. I bought mine new 5 years ago. The long-term reliability of the Gen 3 Elantra was not established at that time. But I had excellent ownership experience with my 2001 Elantra (which when purchased in the fall of 2000 was really a leap of faith), which is the same geenral design as the 2004, and there were indications from sources like CR and JD Power that Hyundai's reliability was improving, especially for their post-2000 models. So I decided to go with the 2004. It's been excellent in reliability also. Even the paint and trim.
|
|
|
Replying to: tidester (Mar 06, 2009 6:58 pm) Probably best to try to sign on with one, but I'll have to somehow sync my home computer with my work computer. Anyhow, you are welcome to delete one of the ID's (don't care which). I'm the same person, with the 2004 Elantra etc.
|
|
|
Backy, I don't want this to deteriorate into a personal battle of no interest to anyone else. I don't think that would be fair to the readers of this site. Let's try to keep to the topic and totally avoid personal attacks ("like mis-stating other people's posts"). I'll quit the thread, but I won't engage in flame wars and personal attacks, sorry. You certainly dismissed JD Powers in post 3120 "Anyway, if you look closely at the JD Power reliability scores that you posted the link to earlier, you will see how suspect they are." or all surveys in 3126: It seems you are putting a lot of faith into two surveys in which you have no idea what methodology is used to obtain the results. I pointed out, that you have no valid grounds for doubting their methodology (which was a whole long argument over several posts) - and that the burden of proof is on you, since these are experienced organizations who have been in this business for a long time. We can argue over this till the cows come home. My point is very simple - in the position most consumers find themselves (limited information), surveys such as CR and JD Powers are a valuable factor for rational decisions, even if they don't (and can't have) 100% predictive powers. As such, I was totally justified in telling the OP that he should be cautious about the transmission in the Elantra 2000 (indeed based on many other problem areas, he should avoid the vehicle). I felt that I was taken to task by you for specious reasons - after all, I at least don't rely on anecdotes but on the best evidence we have access to - the surveys. I feel that partisanship should not compel one to defend car brands in face of objective data - it is not grounds for rational decision. And kudos on your choice of the 2004 Elantra - quality trends are going up for Hyundais. Not consistently, but enough so it is a rational decision to go for the brand all other things being equal.
|
|
|
Replying to: tidester (Mar 03, 2009 10:06 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: PatMatHat (Mar 06, 2009 9:11 pm) Too late. See #602, for example. As for your quotes, you again are mis-interpreting them. That is not a personal attack on you, but fact. The first quote re JD Powers IQS was about specific data on a specific car, not about "dismissing" CR or JD Power survey results in general. I went on to discuss how important it is to understand what the JD Power IQS actually measures--not just reliability (over the first 90 days of ownership), but owner opinions on car design, performance, features etc. The second quote was about how you are interpreting the CR and JD Power surveys vs. the surveys themselves. I don't know why you think I "took you to task" for telling someone they should avoid the 2000 Elantra. For the record, here was my response to that poster, who was asking whether to go for a 2000 Elantra with 76k miles, for $3200. A car that is 9 years old with 76k miles can have anything break at any time. KBB private-party value is about $3000, so there may be negotiating room on the car. If the car is in good condition and was well-maintained (all records, including for the important 60k service), and checks out OK when you take it to a mechanic for an inspection, it might be worth it. But for a few hundred bucks more you can get a much nicer car, with a better reliability record. The Elantra was redesigned for 2001 and that generation has a better reliability record. For example, CR recommends the 2003-6 Elantras as Good Choices in used cars, and Edmunds.com has the 2001-6 Elantra as its Top Choice for small used cars. But on those cars, too, the maintenance history is important. The car does require a timing belt change every 60k miles. I owned a 2001 GLS for 5-1/2 years, sold it to my sister, and she still has it and except for some body damage (not the car's fault), it looks and drives great. My 2004 GT looks and runs like new except for a few dings and scratches. Both cars have been very reliable. So it they were well-maintained, these cars can be good bets as used cars. BTW, if's very easy to set up multiple computers to use the same ID and password. I do that myself. Just login on both computers using the same ID and password, and be sure cookies are enabled and you check the little box to remember the login. The computers will remember your login settings indefinitely (until you clear the cookies). |
|
|
Replying to: mickeyrom (Mar 07, 2009 6:40 am) I didn't say they were. It was a hypothetical scenario. You missed the "what if" part. tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper |
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Comments: Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings
