Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

LOL. We both know it happened, Lloyd. It has been discussed MANY
previous times.

If you figure out why it may be that domestic-rebadged Jap stuff got
lower ratings, then we can talk.

Pretending it didn't happen is lame, even for you.

Certainly. Pretending the results are even remotely scientific is my
objection.

People who would do real science, I suppose. But there is no
mechanism currently for that.

So we're stuck with the unscientific opinions of owners, doubly self-
selected.

E.P.

 

You just proved our side of this discussion.

If we listed to what USERS said, well.... MOST computer users do use
Microsoft products.

But the fact is, I listen to what KNOWLEDGEABLE users say, and most of
them try to avoid MS products when there are alternatives.

All car "users" are not created equal, but all car "users" get an equal
voice in CR. Thus the results are skewed by the perception of
non-engineer users who have no understanding of WHY a car is doing
something they do or don't like... or for that matter why what they
"like" is not what is objectively the best characteristic.

 

Then I'm sure you can provide some references. Or maybe it's like
"Proctor & Gamble's emblem is satanis" -- that's been discussed MANY
previous times too.

Who's doing that? You're raising a strawman argument.

 

But you should be asking the Microsoft engineers, from what you've
been saying in this thread.

Gee, I didn't realize some owners were worth more than others. Tell
me, which owners know if their steering has a problem after a year and
which ones don't?

And this affects Chryslers differently from Hondas how?

 

From CR:

1. Is this a scientific survey?
There are generally two criteria that social scientists use to
evaluate the quality of a survey: its validity and its reliability.
Validity refers to whether the survey actually measures what it says
it does. Reliability refers to whether the information generated by
the survey would be repeated if the survey were to be conducted again.

We have strong evidence that our survey is both valid and reliable.
The questions in the survey are designed professionally by experts in
CR's National Research Center, in consultation with our automotive
engineers and statisticians. Members of our survey team have more than
30 years of experience in conducting all sorts of consumer surveys.
The survey uses an aided response technique that leads respondents
through well-defined specific items and gives each respondent the same
perspective in answering the questions. The data we report tracks well
with other sources of repair and reliability information available on
the market. Although we know that auto manufacturers pay close
attention to our reports, they have not formally disputed our survey
findings, which often identify problems that the manufacturers see in
the warranty experience of their vehicles. We conduct a validation
test every year and, in more than 30 years, have not found any
evidence of bias. From year to year, our subscribers' reports of their
problem experiences are fairly consistent; when there is a difference
on a particular model, we can often attribute it to known issues with
a particular component of a car.


6.2. Is the survey based on a representative sample?
A sample is considered to be representative of a population if the
relevant characteristics of the population are reflected in the
sample. So, considering the population of interest is critical in
evaluating the quality of a sample. Our survey sample is drawn from
the population of subscribers to ConsumerReports.org and to Consumer
Reports magazine. While all subscribers are invited to participate in
the survey, participation is voluntary, and there is always the
possibility that those who respond are unique in some particular way.
For example, subscribers have sometimes questioned whether those who
respond are those who have a complaint to make about their cars.

To address this concern, we conduct a validation test every year. A
representative sample of 8,000 to 10,000 subscribers are mailed the
same questions about problem experiences with their cars at the same
time as all subscribers are asked to complete the main survey. Using a
combination of incentives and follow-up mailings, we attain at least a
40 to 50 percent response rate on this validation sample. The
validation sample is known to be representative of the subscriber
population; by comparing responses from this sample to responses of
the main sample, we can assess whether the main sample is
representative of the population overall. In more than 30 years we
have not found any biases on any of the questions on any of the
topics.

One reason for this is that our survey is an omnibus survey asking
subscribers not only about their cars, but about a dozen other
products, about major services they have used (such as insurance,
hotels, and health plans), as well as suggestions for CR. The survey
also requests participation in our board of directors election. Many
subscribers return surveys reporting that they had no problems at all
with their cars in the past year. This is true for all makes and
models of cars. So, owners with complaints about their cars are not
the only ones who return the survey.

Any survey has some sort of sampling frame that limits the people
being surveyed. We choose our subscribers as our sampling frame. On
average, CR subscribers tend to be more educated and affluent than the
general population. With the growth of Consumer Reports online, a
wider demographic range of individuals has been surveyed in recent
years. However, our reliability questions do not ask respondents about
their attitudes or opinions about the reliability of their cars, where
one might expect different groups of individuals to have different
perspectives. Instead, we ask for factual information about whether
specifically defined problems occurred; these types of questions are
less sensitive to the nature of the characteristics of the sample
itself.

Further, our results track well with other sources of reliability
information available on the market, and auto manufacturers have not
formally disputed our survey findings, which often correspond to
problems that the manufacturers see in the warranty experiences of the
population of car owners at large.

(Read more at
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/..._consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm#1

 

You still don't get it. a decade and you still don't get it. not worth my
time explaining it to you AGAIN.

that's not the argument and you know it.

It means CR's data cannot produce reliable results.

 

Here's the thing, Lloyd - we've played this game before, and you
pulled the same crap. The references were posted, after which you
dismissed them with some hand-waving.

Now, *anyone* can do a little googling and see for themselves. I
encourage it, in fact.

If you wish to pretend it didn't happen, or that the results don't
matter, that's fine by me.

Anyone who is at all curious can search and judge for themselves. I
don't have any problem with what their conclusions might be.

You are, by claiming the bias doesn't matter. That's a claim you
haven't proven.

In order for the results to have meaning, the statistics have to be
good. If they aren't, the results are biased by their very nature.
Doubly-self-selected respondents with no control group provides
results which have no meaning. In addition, the surveys use imprecise
terms which can be interpretted differently by different people.

Which leads CR to the embarrassing results where American rebadged
Japanese-built cars get lower reliability ratings than their identical
Japanese-badged siblings.

The LOL factor is very high.

E.P.

 

Keep displaying your complete ignorance of engineering Lloyd.

How long does a race car's engine last? Why is it reliable for only a
such short period of time? How was the design balanced between
performance and long term reliability? Have you figured it out yet?

 

Nice strawmen parker.

You're purposely missing the point.

I am not following your tangents.

 

Note: Social Science. Basically it's like political poll. It's not
technical, it's social. It's about feelings and perceptions not technical
fact. A bunch of people really pissed off that a hub cap discolored on a car
and it gets bad ratings... but I'm buying it with alloy wheels so the bad
rating is misleading for me, but I don't know the rating was caused by
discolored plastic hub caps.