Bias Against Domestic Cars

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

formatting link
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

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

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?

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

formatting link
>

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

Reply to
hls

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.

formatting link
>>

Reply to
Mike Hunter

They have.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

formatting link
>

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

Reply to
Derek Gee

formatting link
>>

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.

Reply to
dr_jeff

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.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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

formatting link
>

Reply to
C. E. White

That's like saying you're biased against having piles of human waste in your living room.

Bias is simply bias. In this case, enough people came about the bias honestly.

Fuck the UAW and the crap it puts out. Fuck the Big Three and the crap they put out.

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

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!)
Reply to
Andrew Rossmann

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.

Reply to
hls

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.

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.

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

Derek

Reply to
Derek Gee

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

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

Reply to
Derek Gee

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).

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

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).

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.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

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

formatting link

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

"Andrew Rossmann" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org...

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.

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

Reply to
C. E. White

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

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

Reply to
Vic Smith

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

Reply to
clare

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.