Bias Against Domestic Cars

I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
vehicles. See:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html

Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:

-Chevrolet Colorado
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
-Five-year cost of repairs: $798

Forbes is using the highly unreliable Consumer Report reliability
information. However, at least for this particular vehicle, the rating
may be justified. Only the Ranger and Mazda B Series had a lower
overall scores in the small truck category, and at least they had
average reliability. See GMC Canyon below...

-Chrysler Sebring Convertible
-Segment: Convertibles
-Consumer Reports Reliability Rating: More than 90% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 45
-Five-year cost of repairs: $770

Another vehicle that appears to deserve to be on the list....

-Chrysler Town & Country
-Segment: Wagons/minivans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 64
-Five-year cost of repairs: $807

-Dodge Grand Caravan
-Segment: Wagons/minivans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 60
-Five-year cost of repairs: $807

These are essentially the same vehicle -why list them separately? And
why not list the Volkwagon Routan which is essentially the same
vehicle and has almost exactly the same ratings and reliability as the
T&C.

-Ford F-250
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 37
-Five-year cost of repairs: $969

The Forbes article doesn't calrify that the Consumer Reports Rating
was only for the 4WD Turbodiesel version, and even then, that rating
was based on the prior generation engine from 2008. So Forbes is
smearing all F250s based on a two year old diesel engine option that
is sold in less than 30% of the vehicles......

-GMC Canyon
-Segment: Pickup trucks
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
-Five-year cost of repairs: $718

This is the same vehicle as the Chevrolet Colorada.They should have
been listed together.

-Jaguar XF
-Segment: Luxury sedans
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 72
-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,301

This one is seems very unfair. While it is true that the XF got a poor
reliability rating, it was no worse than the "recommended" Lexus GS
AWD which is not on the list of ten clunkers to avoid? Why not?

-Lincoln MKS
-Segment: Luxury sedans
-Reliability Rating: More than 80% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 73
-Five-year cost of repairs: $869

The Lincoln MKS and the Lexus GS AWD were rated almost idenitcally
(overall rating 75 for the GS, 73 for MKS) and both got the exact same
poor relibaility rating. Yet the GS is "Recommended" and the MKS shows
up as a clunker to avoid. Where is the fariness in that? The BMW 535i,
and Cadillac STS also showed up as having poor reliability, yet they
are not clunkers. Hmmmm....

-Mercedes-Benz GL450
-Segment: Luxury SUVs
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 77
-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,501

-Volkswagen Touareg
-Segment: Luxury SUVs
-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 66
-Five-year cost of repairs: $907

I can't really argue with the last two, both had poor reliability
rating and high prices. However, it should be noted there were others
in the class that had the same poor reliability ratings and worse
overall scorces, but they didn't make the list. I wonder how they
picked which ones belonged?

------

I guess my complaints come down to these:

In two case Forbes listed vehicles that were essentially twins
separately, making it appear as if more US vehicles were really bad.

In the case of the Chrysler T&C Minivan, they listed it (and the Dodge
equivalent), but did not list the essentially identical VW Routan. If
they had followed form, it seems that the Routan would have been
listed separately, thereby pushing another vheicle off the lsit.

Forbes included the Lincoln MKS as a clunker, but omitted the Lexus GS
AWD which had almost the same ratings and predicted reliability. Why?
Also, when you look at the data for the MKS, most components got an
excellent rating. Only body harware got the much worse than average
rating. And in fact, the AWD MKS got as good or better reliability
ratings than the AWD GS in every category except body hardware (and
before 2008, the GS had poor body hardware). And the MKS relibaility
was rated based only on the 2009 model. Usually CR doesn't predict
reliability for new models, yet despite reliability data that actually
looks better than the Lexus GS, they gave the MKS a worse predicted
reliability rating. This seems really unfair. CR is predicting that a
vehicle with a poor relibailty history will have better reliability
than a model which in its frst year of production, already had better
reliability rating as determined by their own survey.....hmmmm...

They listed the F250 as a clunker, but only a very specific model of
the F250 qualified as having poor reliability (turbodiesel 4WD model,
based on results from two years ago). Regular F250's had an average
reliability rating. CR lists the relability for a 2010 F250 as "new
model." So it seem Forbes was unfair in including this in a list of
new vehicle to avoid if they are using the CR data...

It seems to me that Forbes picked 10 vehicle out of about 30 that
could have qualified as clunkers. By listing twins separately they
moved some deserving vehicles off the list. And the 10 listed were not
the ten worst if you go solely by CRs ratings. So what were they? The
ten that Forbes editiors liked the least? I could live with this if
Forbes provided a more completel list. However, by listing vehicles
like the Lincoln MKS and Jaguar MKS, while omitting the Lexus GS, I
have to wonder if they aren't showing bias towards Lexus. I can't see
any justification for listing the Lincoln MKS and not also including
the Lexus GS.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
>
> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
> vehicles. See:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>
> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:

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

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> 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?


Statistics can be used to prejudice almost anything, I guess.

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.



"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>>> vehicles. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>>>
>>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> Statistics can be used to prejudice almost anything, I guess.

Mike Hunter wrote:
> 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.

They have.

Jeff

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> 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.

Derek

Derek Gee wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>>> vehicles. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>>>
>>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>> 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.
>
> Derek

The same is true at C and D. They seem to usually favor the German and
Asian cars over the US cars. Not always though.

If the five year repair cost ($800) is less then $161 a year is it
really realistic to call something a "clunker"? And do they take into
account how much less that "clunker" might cost to buy compared to
their favorite import?

After looking thru the article I agree it's rather striking how they
padded the "top 10" with the same vehicle under two names.


On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:42:54 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>vehicles. See:
>
>http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>
>Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
>-Chevrolet Colorado
>-Segment: Pickup trucks
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $798
>
>Forbes is using the highly unreliable Consumer Report reliability
>information. However, at least for this particular vehicle, the rating
>may be justified. Only the Ranger and Mazda B Series had a lower
>overall scores in the small truck category, and at least they had
>average reliability. See GMC Canyon below...
>
>-Chrysler Sebring Convertible
>-Segment: Convertibles
>-Consumer Reports Reliability Rating: More than 90% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 45
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $770
>
>Another vehicle that appears to deserve to be on the list....
>
>-Chrysler Town & Country
>-Segment: Wagons/minivans
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 64
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $807
>
>-Dodge Grand Caravan
>-Segment: Wagons/minivans
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 60
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $807
>
>These are essentially the same vehicle -why list them separately? And
>why not list the Volkwagon Routan which is essentially the same
>vehicle and has almost exactly the same ratings and reliability as the
>T&C.
>
>-Ford F-250
>-Segment: Pickup trucks
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 37
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $969
>
>The Forbes article doesn't calrify that the Consumer Reports Rating
>was only for the 4WD Turbodiesel version, and even then, that rating
>was based on the prior generation engine from 2008. So Forbes is
>smearing all F250s based on a two year old diesel engine option that
>is sold in less than 30% of the vehicles......
>
>-GMC Canyon
>-Segment: Pickup trucks
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 41
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $718
>
>This is the same vehicle as the Chevrolet Colorada.They should have
>been listed together.
>
>-Jaguar XF
>-Segment: Luxury sedans
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 72
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,301
>
>This one is seems very unfair. While it is true that the XF got a poor
>reliability rating, it was no worse than the "recommended" Lexus GS
>AWD which is not on the list of ten clunkers to avoid? Why not?
>
>-Lincoln MKS
>-Segment: Luxury sedans
>-Reliability Rating: More than 80% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 73
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $869
>
>The Lincoln MKS and the Lexus GS AWD were rated almost idenitcally
>(overall rating 75 for the GS, 73 for MKS) and both got the exact same
>poor relibaility rating. Yet the GS is "Recommended" and the MKS shows
>up as a clunker to avoid. Where is the fariness in that? The BMW 535i,
>and Cadillac STS also showed up as having poor reliability, yet they
>are not clunkers. Hmmmm....
>
>-Mercedes-Benz GL450
>-Segment: Luxury SUVs
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>-Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 77
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $1,501
>
>-Volkswagen Touareg
>-Segment: Luxury SUVs
>-Reliability Rating: More than 100% worse than average
>Overall Consumer Reports Rating: 66
>-Five-year cost of repairs: $907
>
>I can't really argue with the last two, both had poor reliability
>rating and high prices. However, it should be noted there were others
>in the class that had the same poor reliability ratings and worse
>overall scorces, but they didn't make the list. I wonder how they
>picked which ones belonged?
>
>------
>
>I guess my complaints come down to these:
>
>In two case Forbes listed vehicles that were essentially twins
>separately, making it appear as if more US vehicles were really bad.
>
>In the case of the Chrysler T&C Minivan, they listed it (and the Dodge
>equivalent), but did not list the essentially identical VW Routan. If
>they had followed form, it seems that the Routan would have been
>listed separately, thereby pushing another vheicle off the lsit.
>
>Forbes included the Lincoln MKS as a clunker, but omitted the Lexus GS
>AWD which had almost the same ratings and predicted reliability. Why?
>Also, when you look at the data for the MKS, most components got an
>excellent rating. Only body harware got the much worse than average
>rating. And in fact, the AWD MKS got as good or better reliability
>ratings than the AWD GS in every category except body hardware (and
>before 2008, the GS had poor body hardware). And the MKS relibaility
>was rated based only on the 2009 model. Usually CR doesn't predict
>reliability for new models, yet despite reliability data that actually
>looks better than the Lexus GS, they gave the MKS a worse predicted
>reliability rating. This seems really unfair. CR is predicting that a
>vehicle with a poor relibailty history will have better reliability
>than a model which in its frst year of production, already had better
>reliability rating as determined by their own survey.....hmmmm...
>
>They listed the F250 as a clunker, but only a very specific model of
>the F250 qualified as having poor reliability (turbodiesel 4WD model,
>based on results from two years ago). Regular F250's had an average
>reliability rating. CR lists the relability for a 2010 F250 as "new
>model." So it seem Forbes was unfair in including this in a list of
>new vehicle to avoid if they are using the CR data...
>
>It seems to me that Forbes picked 10 vehicle out of about 30 that
>could have qualified as clunkers. By listing twins separately they
>moved some deserving vehicles off the list. And the 10 listed were not
>the ten worst if you go solely by CRs ratings. So what were they? The
>ten that Forbes editiors liked the least? I could live with this if
>Forbes provided a more completel list. However, by listing vehicles
>like the Lincoln MKS and Jaguar MKS, while omitting the Lexus GS, I
>have to wonder if they aren't showing bias towards Lexus. I can't see
>any justification for listing the Lincoln MKS and not also including
>the Lexus GS.
>
>Ed
>
>

I was actually complaining about the Forbes article and how it used the CR
data. But as to your comment, the editors at CR may be biased, but they are
not stupid.

Ed

"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> I came across what I consider another case of bias against domesic
>> vehicles. See:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/clu...s_slide_2.html
>>
>> Supposedly the Forbes editiors picked these vehicle based on COnsumer
>> Reports data. I looked up the CR data and here are my comments:
>
> 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
>
>
>

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.

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

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!)

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross