Perhaps, IF you talk to someone who has owned a FLEET of the SAME model(s,)
but certainly not to someone only owned ONE of them. Just because you
owned ONE that was problematic, or was not problematic, does not mean the
ONE someone else buys will be the same, be it good or bad.
For example you keep harping about bad GM vehicles when obviously most
people who are CURRENTLY still buy more vehicles from GM than any other
brand, do not agree with your assessment of the one or several that you may
have found to be problematic. Good be you abused, or did not properly
maintained, the one or few you owned.
A manufacturer does not continue to sell more than any other manufacture of
the same product if all they made were turned out to be problematic, dummy.
On 18/03/2010 2:24 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
And Olds Firenza, Bobcat, Geo...
Or how about if the plastic manifold goes just outside of warranty.
I thinks you are right.
And Mike does not want to admit GM is #1 only in defunct debt. Sure
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
No. I just said just because people continued to buy the crap didn't
mean they were good - and that the theory GM must be making good cars
because so many people continued to buy them was a flawed theory.
Depends on who you listen to. Consumer Reports reliability list is similar
to what you describe, although Ford is ahead of the Germans even there.
Here's the very latest JD Power Dependability data (released yesterday):
The top brand vehicles:
Note there are NO Korean makes in the top 10 (only Hyundai is above industry
average). You really can't judge by regional origination any more - you
have to look at each manufacturer closely. I trust the Power data a more
than the CR data because their methodology is more scientific.
The fact that is missing BMW tells me it is BS. I would prize the BMW
brand over Buick and Mercury any day. If I lined up a BMW, Buick and
Mercury and gave you a choice of which one is yours to keep, you would
make strait for the BMW.
Or I would.
Politicians don't provide GM anything, the tax payers do.
We have a programme here called "Top Gear" and although it takes the
piss out of people, it does make some serious points. German
manufacturers tend to be in a group, whether Merc, BMW, Opel or Ford,
and they have made the point that considering the makers, Ford "stack em
high and em cheap" whereas BMW "stack em high and sell them expensive"
. Us British know that Ford are cheaper than BMW, that doesn't make
them inferior, just that prats with money will give it away to impress
their friends. Remember when Ford owned Jaguar, nearly all the Jaguar
parts were standard to the Mondeo, or Mundane as it was known this side
of the pond.
But the list is for long term reliability. I know a few BMW owners that
love the cars, but not the maintenance. My experience is limited, but last
time I went to NYC with a friend in a Beemer, I took the train home, he took
a tow truck. But they are lots more fun to drive than the Buick or Mercury
Depends who's going to have to pay for the maintenance/repairs.
I've always said anyone who thinks he's someone, or wants to show he's
done well for himself needs to own one BMW and one Cadillac.
One of each will be enough!
Can't be BS - even Consumer Reports note they have problems.
"Reliabilty has dropped for some models." p15 April 2010 issue
If you dig further in the issue (pgs 40-41), the specific models with
BMW 1 series
BMW 5 series
All are below average or well below average according to them. Not
acceptable for a #1.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.