Consumer Reports Downgrade: Fuel System Reliability

[csimo]

Originally Posted by rollinhonda

I can't see that all the 'stuffing' did Chrysler much good. lol
Sorry, I don't buy it. Must be only the Japanese automakers that are doing the stuffing, since they are always rated so highly, as expected.

Those were some dark days at Chrysler. I'm sure we weren't the only ones doing it.

I'm just telling you what happened, and I really don't give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.

[rollinhonda]

Originally Posted by csimo

Those were some dark days at Chrysler. I'm sure we weren't the only ones doing it.

I'm just telling you what happened, and I really don't give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.

I don't think anyone is saying it was not attempted, just seems to be some doubt that it ever worked.

[WNY PAT]

It is a lot easier to get "dirty data" when the sample is 31,000 versus 1,400,000 - not saying things did or didn't happen... Just that with those number it'd be awful tough to skew the CR data given their current program. And it is t that much homework, it is just a copy-paste from a google search. Both JD and CR are quite up front and honest about the way they collect data.

[rollinhonda]

Originally Posted by WNY PAT

It is a lot easier to get "dirty data" when the sample is 31,000 versus 1,400,000 - not saying things did or didn't happen... Just that with those number it'd be awful tough to skew the CR data given their current program. And it is t that much homework, it is just a copy-paste from a google search. Both JD and CR are quite up front and honest about the way they collect data.

Very useful info, thanks.

[Lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by csimo

Those were some dark days at Chrysler. I'm sure we weren't the only ones doing it.

I'm just telling you what happened, and I really don't give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.

Joe: I obviously cannot speak to your allegations about what happened at Chrysler in the 70's and 80's (the period you defined in your earlier post regarding this). My concern is that you stated, "It is very easy to "stuff" a CR survey... and to be honest that may actually be the majority of the survey results." Other than this statement about attempts by Chrysler to stuff the surveys in the 70's and 80's when you worked there, you've offered no evidence that it is "very easy to stuff a CR survey." Did Chrysler hand out copies of the surveys and try to submit them, but CR realized they were bogus and rejected them? Who knows? Apparently you don't have any idea whether this effort was successful from what you've stated here.

CR makes a major effort in a wide variety of ways to avoid bias. For example, they accept no advertising and, unlike some other rating groups, do not even allow their ratings to be used in advertising. In fact, they've litigated successfully when companies have used CR ratings in their advertising. They are clearly very conscious of their reputation and protecting the integrity of their ratings. To be honest, I feel somewhat protective of them, as I believe it is nice to have a truly objective arbiter of product safety, quality, and reliability, and I think they are the closest thing we've got.

I think therefore that statements such as you have made are irresponsible. I think it is totally fair for you to state that back in the 70's and 80's your company TRIED to stuff the CR quality surveys, but that you have no idea if that ever worked. Every report I have seen on the CR quality surveys is that they only go to subscribers and are only accepted from subscribers, that they receive far more than any other survey company (due primarily to the size of their subscriber base), and that they have generally proved to be fairly accurate.

I would humbly suggest not questioning the integrity of others without facts.

[rollinhonda]

Remember, Joe was talking about the 70's and 80's, personally I did not subscribe to CR and have no knowledge about how careful they were in collecting and preparing data at that time.
At the same token, I would not have put it past some auto makers to attempt such things when they were really feeling the heat from an increasing interest in imports, and being pressured to adopt disk brakes, 3 point seat belts, fuel injection, etc. etc.

[feetdry]

I started subscribing to CR in the late 70's and now on line today. 'Having driven many company cars since 1977, I've had many different experiences than CR reported in their year-end reports. It never bothered me because someone(other than myself) paid for those cars.

I can say that I have never really paid much attention to those reports because they just never did match my experiences.

As Joe said, the individual in the field tests by CR were a lot more interesting to me. It's one of the reasons I'm a CR member today.

[Lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by feetdry

I've had many different experiences than CR reported in their year-end reports.

Good point. I would think that would be true of many of us, since they are reporting broad trends based on lots of users. It's notable that CR have reported steady improvements over the years in automobile reliability generally.

In any case, if a given car is rated "worse than average" in reliability in a certain area, some or even most of those cars may have no problem at all. The CR reliability report would only indicate that when compared to all cars, there were more reliability problems reported for the noted car than for the average.

As an extreme example, if every car owner surveyed for a given year, except one, had no reliability problems at all in a given category, but one had a car that had a problem, that car would, by definition, be worse than average. That owner is presumed to be representative of others who were not surveyed, but the point, in the extreme, is that a car with a 95% reliability rating would be worse than average if all others have a 98% reliability rating. I would think that plenty of people driving a car with a worse than average reliability rating might never experience a problem.

[rollinhonda]

The true value in the reliability charts are 'trends'. Showing those makes that typically have more or fewer defects over time, becomes quite obvious.

It does not mean you will have every one of the problems indicated, or maybe not even one of them. But if you do have a problem, there is greater probability it will be one or more of those.

Trends that Japanese based vehicles (and more recently S. Korean) have fewer issues than domestics.

And among domestics, Ford products fare better, Chrysler products, worse.

Among Asian imports, Honda and Toyota fare the best, with other close behind, with a few exceptions.

You should check out True Delta, who does online auto surveys, very similar fashion in terms of reliability of vehicles, but the data collected, while similar to CR in content, is expressed quite differently. They also have subjective comments from owners on personal experiences.


I don't think any of these 'trends' are any big surprise in the real world.

In summary, you could say CR subscribers simply typify the experience of most owners across the US.

[Lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by rollinhonda

The true value in the reliability charts are 'trends'.

It does not mean you will have every one of the problems indicated, or maybe not even one of them. But if you do have a problem, there is greater probability it will be one or more of those.

In summary, you could say CR subscribers simply typify the experience of most owners across the US.

(And all the gripes of most owners across the US.) I agree. All good points!