Consumers Reports Seeks Bailout

The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown
longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing.
In its petition, Consumers Reports cites the costs of massive restructuring
due to circumstances totally beyond its control. Consumers Reports claims
that since it doesn't take advertising, it is the only unbiased source of
product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that
must be preserved.

The magazine's anticipated restructuring costs are due to the impending
demise of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. With those companies gone, and only
foreign cars to rate, CRs reliability ratings will indicate a statistical
impossibility: all vehicles are better than average.

It was originally thought the data could be adjusted at minimal cost using
standard statistical methodology so an appropriate number of vehicles would
be rated below average. However CR learned standard statistical
methodology cannot be used to ajust data not compiled using standard
statistical methodology.

The compilation of CRs reliability data starts when someone subscribes to
the magazine. They then read an article in CR on the vehicle they own
which tells them whether its good or bad. Then they receive the
reliability questionaire, which they answer according to the CR article.

"Somehow we have to get some vehicles rated below average", said CR
spokesman Justin Jest "but we can't just produce a bunch of negative
articles on foreign vehicles over night. It takes time. And money. We
need and deserve government help. This problem is not of our making"

Initially, negative articles are planned on the companies formerly
associated with the Detroit automakers, Isuzu, Mazda, and Mitsubishi. A
template for the articles has already been prepared. "Estimated
reliability is suspect, as <Isuzu/Mazda/Mitsubishi> was formerly associated
with <GM/Ford/Chrysler>." But still, that won't be enough as these
companies have minimal market share.

"They're going to have to take aim at one of the big boys to get the
numbers" said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute. "They're
counting on India's Tata Motors coming to America, but while that will give
them the bottom end, the numbers will be too small."

Mr. Camel thinks Kia is the only possible target. When asked if perhaps
Toyota or Honda might be a better target for lower reliability ratings, Mr.
Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's
religion".

 

Cute. -Dave

 

Very funny! Who will be next to ask for handouts? The Salvation Army?

dan

 

I predict...Microsoft. Bill Gates Will drive from Seattle to D.C.
personally to plead that software pirates and funny Mac commercials have cut
into his profits severely, and Microsoft can not meet their profit goals
without Trillions of dollars of government bailout money to keep the
shareholders happy. -Dave

 

My bet would be on the catholic church - all those perverted preachers
of theirs, you know....

--
"Here comes another con hiding behind a collar
His only God is the all mighty Dollar
He ain't no prophet, He ain't no healer
He's just a two bit, goddamn money stealer!"
--Suicidal Tendencies

 

funny.

 

Funny, but the subtext that CR is biased against American car makers
is not.
CR's user surveys might not be of publishable scientific level, but
they're the best thing going, and in fact they have panned imports and
praised domestic products (assuming that Mexican assembled Fords are
domestic, that is).

 

CR's automotive survey is as valid as most any study
published in science journals, and probably moreso given the
size of the database yada. For crying out loud, studies with
a mere 20 data points are usual in many fields. Total crap,
but it gets published in referreed journals.

 

Could they not just continue the statistical MYTHOLOGY they are currently
using? To correct the so called 'below average' thing why not simply state
the PERCENTAGE of failure rate that is actually what the current ratings are
reflecting?

Come to think of it, that would not work. Subscribers would wise up and no
longer subscribe if they realize what CR is showing as a 'list' is actually
showing that ALL manufactures vehicles are falling within the standard
statistical methodology of the 2% failure rate for ALL manufactured products

 

Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before spouting
off and looking stupid?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm

 

Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It
can not be stated accurately as a 'list.'

Why don't you READ CR's explanation of their analysis before spouting
off and looking stupid?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm

 

CR does show the percentages of failures, but you have to look at the
very beginning of their tables to see them.

But all cars don't fall within that range, and the differences in
reliability increase with age:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/3028768304_e171d9a42f_o.jpg

How do you explain that?

 

That does not change the fact that what CR is showing as a 'list' of which
is above or below average is actually showing that ALL manufactures vehicles
are falling within the standard statistical methodology of the 2% failure
rate for ALL manufactured products over an identical time period.

In any event one chances of getting one of the 98% that are trouble free is
far greater than ones chances of getting one of any particular manufactures
vehicles that is within the 2% failure rate. That is why they all offer a
warranty, even Rolls Royce. Paying 20% to 30% more to drive home
something with those odds makes little sense. You are for more likely to
get one of any manufacturers 98% than you are of getting one ot their 2%
regardless of the name on the hood.

 

Well, yea, they can say that the chance of failure is twice as high
for one vehicle as another, but its twice something that's near zero
anyway. So what's the likely effect on me? One repair every 10
years? Every 20 years? One in my lifetime?

Major manufacturers are close enough in quality I just buy what I like
and what I need.

 

Learn how to quote and post, and then DON'T get back to us, "Mike",
you top-posting idiot.

 

But they don't. Popular Mechanics also surveys owners, and almost
always, at least 5% of them report a problem within the first year,
with 10% being more common.

Warranties also protect manufacturers.

RR isn't known for high reliability, and neither are German luxury
brand autos.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm

I have read it and I still believe the little circle over emphasize
small differences, that may not be statistically valid. In the
discussion they talk about the average circle representing a failure
rate of 2.5% (not an actual value, but their example). Do you think
that a sample size of 100 vehicles is enough so that you can cut
things that fine (the difference between average and excellent is 2.5%
and there is "very good in between)? And then consider that the sample
is not a random sample. People choose to participate. And the only
people who have that choice are Consumer Reports readers. So the
people who respond are opinionated, motivated people who like Consumer
Reports. Don't you suppose they are likely to be biased towards
agreeing with CR's editorial opinions?

Ed

 

In what part did you see this mention of 2.5 percent? I see
it only in section 4.2, and it says nothing like what you
say.

This is the minimum required sample size. If you read the
site linked above, it notes that 200-400 cars per model year
is usual.

I disagree with other points you are making.

 

Yes, section 4.2. I expressed myself poorly. In the CR example of what
happens with small problem rates they use the 2.5% average failure
rate as an example (which is why I said "not an actual value, but
their example"). Although 2.5% might not be an actual average failure
rate, I think the information from other sources (like JD Power)
indicates that the average failure rate for new cars is very low,
definitely in that range. So assuming that the average failure rate is
very low, around 3% Consumer Reports slices the difference between a
3% failure rate a 0% failure rate into three categories (Excellent,
Very Good, Average). Given small sample sizes (as small as 100
responses), do you really believe the potential error rate for the
survey results support such fine divisions? I'd GUESS that the error
rate is probably on the order of +/- 5% for many of the vehicle with
smaller sample sizes (and by smaller , I mean in the several 100's of
responses). I think not. This is why I think CR's method over
emphasizes small, statistically insignificant differences in vehicles.

And this is still a very small sample size when you are talking about
very small actual differences in failure rates.

Which points are those? Do you think that I am wrong when I refer to
the people who respond to the CR surveys as "opinionated, motivated
people who like Consumer
Reports?" It seems to me this is given. The only question is whether
this group is typical of all car buyers. I think not. Do you think
they would be likely to strongly disagree with CR's editorial
opinions? I am sure some do (people like me), but I think most then to
be somewhat biased towards agreeing with CR.

Ed

 

What you state is not true. At least not in our universe.

So your claim is that there are no differences between makes in terms
of reliability? That's so far-fetched, I doubt even you believe it.