Bias Against Domestic Cars

"Derek Gee" > wrote in message
>
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
> wrong at CR.
>
> Derek

Just a point...."largely the same parts" may not be the same as equivalent
vehicles.

I am not defending CR.. I have held them up to doubt many times on other
types
of products, where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

"Andrew Rossmann" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> says...
>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>> wrong
>> at CR.
>
> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> it's in the subscribers.

There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job in
trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
quality.

> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.

Very, very true. Even though the dealerships are independent entities,
people still see them as "Ford". If they treat the buyer poorly, it will be
reflected in the surveys.

> CR rates the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan as having higher reliablity than
> the Accord or Camry. (Toyota is nice if you want your car to drive
> 100mph on it's own!)

A very impressive achievement! Note that Lincoln MKZ is also higher rated
than the Lexus and Acura equivalents by CR.

Derek

"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Derek Gee" > wrote in message
>>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>> wrong at CR.
>>
>> Derek
>
> Just a point...."largely the same parts" may not be the same as equivalent
> vehicles.

The only differences were the outer skins. They were the same platform
underneath.

> I am not defending CR.. I have held them up to doubt many times on other
> types
> of products, where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

I've always worried about a company that reviews toasters rating
sophisticated devices, particularly consumer electronics and automobiles.
But they do have the advantage of being advertisement free...

Derek

Mike Hunter wrote:
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
>> Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
>> Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/...568cf3dd_o.gif
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/...8946b017_o.gif
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/...8eb87a00_o.gif
>
> Seems to me CR would have better served its subscribe if it had informed
> them they could save a lot of money by purchasing the domestic version of
> those vehicles rather than the Jap twin.

It seems that you're drunk and senile again, Foghorn, because the
links show that CR has done exactly that. They actually favor
American brands when they're competitive with foreign ones, as
demonstrated by their gushing over the pretty good but not best Ford
Fusion, and back when Toyota's T100 pickup was introduced in the US,
the cover of CR headlined, "Ford Beats Toyota" (but the T-100 was
pretty bad compared to the Ford).

Derek Gee wrote:
> "Andrew Rossmann" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> > it's in the subscribers.
>
> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job in
> trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
> quality.

JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).
>
> > Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
> > toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.

Then I'd expect luxury car brands to fare better because of their
dealerships, so why have Cadlllac and Rolls-Royce long fared so poorly
in reliability ratings? And Toyota's brand with the highest
reliability is budget Scion, not luxury Lexus.

Derek Gee wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > So why hasn't CR shown any bias when they've tested American and
> > Japanese twins, like the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe or the Toyota
> > Corolla and Geo Prizm?
>
> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was wrong
> at CR.

Please explain. Here are the reliability ratings of the 626 and
Probe:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/...1e3833c8_o.jpg

"Andrew Rossmann" > wrote in
message ...
> In article m>,
> says...
>
>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the
>> Ford
>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using
>> largely
>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher
>> reliability
>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something
>> was wrong
>> at CR.
>
> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
> it's in the subscribers.

I don't completely agree with this. The CR survey is very simplistic.
A lot of the questions depend on the responder making value
judgements. These judgements are based on the experience / beliefs /
opinions of the reponders. These factors are at least partially
influenced by what CR says about a given vehicle. If CR says a Camry
is reliable, then the respondents are more likely to shade their
answers in that direction. Probably a small shading, but given the
tiny differences in the results, it does not take much to seem
significant given CRs method of reporting the results. The little
shaded circle methods makes it seem that the differences are much more
significant than they really are. The difference between the horrible
black dot rating and the wonderful red dot rating can be trivial in
some cases. So small shadings in the responses can look like major
differnces, when in fact they are not. And then there is the whole
problem of the pool of responders. I would argue that the readership
of CR is biased towards a group of people who agree with the CR
editorial opinions. Since CR has shown a marked prefernce for Toyota
products over recent years, I believe the CR reasdership is more
likely to be disposed towards believing Toyotas are more reliable than
other cars. I believe this will lead towards a bias in the survey
results. Again, maybe a small bias, but that is all it takes to
completely screw up the results as interperted by the CR editiorial
staff.

> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long
> way
> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.

Definitely true. This probably explainis why Lexus always has high
ratings. However, it probably works against Toyota, since Toyota
dealerships are usually rated worse than average in other surveys.

Ed

> CR rates the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan as having higher reliablity
> than
> the Accord or Camry. (Toyota is nice if you want your car to drive
> 100mph on it's own!)

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:59:55 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Rossmann" > wrote in
>message ...
>> In article m>,
>> says...
>>
>>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the
>>> Ford
>>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using
>>> largely
>>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher
>>> reliability
>>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something
>>> was wrong
>>> at CR.
>>
>> CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
>> it's in the subscribers.
>
>I don't completely agree with this. The CR survey is very simplistic.
>A lot of the questions depend on the responder making value
>judgements. These judgements are based on the experience / beliefs /
>opinions of the reponders. These factors are at least partially
>influenced by what CR says about a given vehicle. If CR says a Camry
>is reliable, then the respondents are more likely to shade their
>answers in that direction. Probably a small shading, but given the
>tiny differences in the results, it does not take much to seem
>significant given CRs method of reporting the results. The little
>shaded circle methods makes it seem that the differences are much more
>significant than they really are. The difference between the horrible
>black dot rating and the wonderful red dot rating can be trivial in
>some cases. So small shadings in the responses can look like major
>differnces, when in fact they are not. And then there is the whole
>problem of the pool of responders. I would argue that the readership
>of CR is biased towards a group of people who agree with the CR
>editorial opinions. Since CR has shown a marked prefernce for Toyota
>products over recent years, I believe the CR reasdership is more
>likely to be disposed towards believing Toyotas are more reliable than
>other cars. I believe this will lead towards a bias in the survey
>results. Again, maybe a small bias, but that is all it takes to
>completely screw up the results as interperted by the CR editiorial
>staff.
>
>> Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long
>> way
>> toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
>
>Definitely true. This probably explainis why Lexus always has high
>ratings. However, it probably works against Toyota, since Toyota
>dealerships are usually rated worse than average in other surveys.
>
>Ed
>
Toyota/Honda owners will disagree with what you said.
But you hit the high spots.
Of course CR will never release the number of survey respondents of
each make of car.
Might look funny to see that 90% of the survey respondents are
reporting on Toyotas/Hondas.
Why subscribe to a magazine then not follow its advice about your
biggest purchase?
CR does do some good stuff on smaller purchases and other matters
though, so it is a useful tool.
That's why I was a long-time subscriber.
Nowadays there are net resources with product reviews.
As you said, the use of colored circles dots is a big weakness.
More detail on what was repaired and actual costs could very well save
some subscribers money when they select their car - especially used
cars.
I get that detail through other sources (mechanics, net complaints,
forums, etc) and do very well with costs on my used cars.
Chevys. The knocks from CR on Chevys and other cars have made them a
real bargain on the used car market - if you are even a bit
analytical.
The JD Powers surveys are often knocked, but they are professional
surveys paid for by the auto manufacturers. Last I looked the
individual owners surveyed are paid 20 bucks to tell the truth.
BTW, I never filled out a CR survey.
Even when my Chevys were young enough to qualify, I didn't want to
mess up a good thing by reporting no problems.
FYI, it seems CR is now a free magazine, at least for me.
I let my subscription lapse about 5 years ago, but continue to get the
magazine in the mail. Along with occasional letters asking me to
re-subscribe. I guess they think sending me the magazines is an
enticement to subscribe. Not a good sales practice overall, I think.

--Vic

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:28:30 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> wrote:

>"hls" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "Derek Gee" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> They have. Look back through the archives at their ratings for the Ford
>>> Probe and Mazda 626. They were built in the same US plant, using largely
>>> the same parts, yet the Mazda was always given the higher reliability
>>> rating. This was one of the first clues that I had that something was
>>> wrong at CR.
>>>
>>> Derek
>>
>> Just a point...."largely the same parts" may not be the same as equivalent
>> vehicles.
>
>The only differences were the outer skins. They were the same platform
>underneath.
>
>> I am not defending CR.. I have held them up to doubt many times on other
>> types
>> of products, where they clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
>
>I've always worried about a company that reviews toasters rating
>sophisticated devices, particularly consumer electronics and automobiles.
>But they do have the advantage of being advertisement free...
>
>Derek
>

The same "platform" does not mean the same floorpan, or even
necessarily the same wheelbase or track. It means it shares a
"layout".

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Derek Gee wrote:
>> "Andrew Rossmann" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > CR only reports what their annual survey says. If there is any bias,
>> > it's in the subscribers.
>>
>> There's always bias in humans, but a better survey would do a better job
>> in
>> trying to design it out of the polling. The JD Power data seems better
>> quality.
>
> JD Powers is worse and has shown more bias in favor of luxury cars and
> cars favored by senior citizens, whether or not those vehicles were
> reliable (Lincoln) or not (Jaguar before Ford bought them).

Not so. They have a much more accurate survey questionaire than the CR one.

>> > Also, don't forget that the quality of the dealership can go a long way
>> > toward how 'reliable' you think your car is.
>
> Then I'd expect luxury car brands to fare better because of their
> dealerships, so why have Cadlllac and Rolls-Royce long fared so poorly
> in reliability ratings?

Where have you seen any published reliability data on RR? They aren't in
any published survey I've ever seen.

>And Toyota's brand with the highest
> reliability is budget Scion, not luxury Lexus.

Wrong, Scion is WAY below industry average in the 2009 JD Power
Dependability study!

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...df/2009043.pdf

Derek