1st Mar 2009, 18:24

No, I walk in knowing I will have to pay $1500 MORE for a domestic vehicle because the customer has to pay the exorbitant health care costs for U.S. auto workers, which no other car maker in the world has to pay because every other civilized country provides health care for their citizens.

2nd Mar 2009, 12:05

So explain how the free health care is paid for... maybe raise our personal income tax $1500... since when is there a free ride anywhere unless it's a tooth fairy paying.

My employer pays 100% of mine, but I suspect it's either less pay with or more pay without, and I am not in the automotive industry. So why ever overpay high profitability for inflated priced imports with those that ship their profits overseas?

Better yet, test drive and compare feature for feature and make a personal determination. Then buy.

Also, why ever settle for less than a 100,000 mile warranty in this day and age vs. charge a relatively new vehicle owner that has 51,000 miles on the odometer.

If the vehicles are so exceptional in my opinion, offer a great warranty, spend less on advertising and give more features in the vehicle. If the drivetrain is so perfect then warranty it for 100000 miles with scheduled intervals maintained.

I left imports over the warranty issue.... maybe repeat business is not as valued today. I'll try something once or twice, but not without exceptional service from now on.

2nd Mar 2009, 13:36

16:12

All of your points have been dealt with in detail earlier in this thread.

There are real issues with the way CR reports their data and reviews. But what's the point, if you and others are content to explain everything with a conspiracy theory?

Real issues?: I know of at least three.

#1 There is real bias in their test drives and the reviews based upon them.

#2 There isn't a numerical value placed upon their symbols any more, so there may not be that much of a difference between a solid black and a solid red (much worse than average vs. much better than average) which leads to comments like "I've owned my Ford with a solid black in the area of the body integrity for 150,000 miles. When are the problems supposed to show up?" The "average" may be so good that "below average" may take in a grand total of two vehicles in a thousand, for all we know.

#3 They seem to have a "perfect vehicle" in the back of their collective mind. It is obviously some kind of reasonably efficient car, too. So ANY vehicle that strays too far from that ideal is roundly criticized even if its intended purpose is far afield of that imaginary car.

2nd Mar 2009, 17:43

"It is very easy to prove that Consumer Reports is bias in their recommendation (s) of Toyota."

I am not so sure the bad reporting by CR is entirely intentional. They rely on voluntary reporting, which has quite a few pitfalls of its own. People who subscribe to CR in the first place are a small segment of the population. Then on top of that only 12% of subscribers respond. It is a known phenomena that people who respond to those kinds of surveys exhibit a need for approval, they feel like they have a relationship with the people doing the survey, and they feel like they want to give the answers that the surveyors want. It is a bit of a stretch to call the CR data "scientific." And it is deceptive for them to call their results "unbiased" when their very data collection method is recognized scientifically to involve some significant bias problems.

I have been involved in some marketing research in the Fortune 500 company I work for, and I have been amazed at how difficult it is to get meaningful results with all the different kinds of biases that can get introduced. In every consumer research project I have been involved in, we have seen how you can get the consumers to say anything you want just by how we set up the data collection. This is all just for internal use - we are just trying to gauge what products to make, or what features to include. But it drives us nuts because every time we do a study, we get completely different results from the last study.

2nd Mar 2009, 18:54

I've tried to get this point across for years. I've owned several vehicles that were rated "much worse than average". We never have had a single problem with ANY of them.

On the other hand, we've had a car the magazines all freak out over and rate as the best in the universe (Honda). It was a total disaster and was not as reliable as the very WORST domestic I've ever heard of.

I no longer mindlessly accept the myths put out by Japanese car companies. I go by my own experience and drive only domestics. My money is too hard to come by these days to spend it on something that will sit in the repair shop several days a month.

3rd Mar 2009, 15:30

That is fine. But there are several problems with your logic.

#1 I used to take their surveys. They weren't interested in how I FELT. They simply asked what went wrong with my vehicle.

#2 Your logic is only valid if a subscriber KNOWS what the surveyor wants them to say... in other words, you presume bias as a part of your premise... even though you begin by saying it is unintentional.

#3 Where is the payoff (approval)? No one is contacted directly via phone or other medium so they can "feel the love". It's just an ugly form... and there is no bias in the way it's set up (if you saw it, you'd likely agree. They ask what you drive and what went wrong. That's it.)

#4 CR itself admits that there are built-in pitfalls to this type (or any type) of data collection. So they use various mechanisms to attempt to avoid these things. Read their FAQ.

#5 It is equally a stretch to call their method biased when you are only comparing it to data collection you say you did. Who did you work for? How large were your surveys? How were they conducted? What studies are you referring to? Why would this benefit the Japanese and not the Germans, for example.

#6 Even if what you said was true and happening, wouldn't it break down over time so that, like you say, their results would be all over the map? Instead trends show up that are validated by other reporting agencies with a much less storied past. For example, go to the sections on long term reliability in Truedelta.com or JD Power. These publications mostly agree with CR so...

#7 Why would that be? They all use varying methods.

Yes, this is a science AND an art. Surveyors agree on this point. But your criticism of what they do will be taken as a REPUDIATION of what they do. Further... by this logic, ALL surveying is invalidated.

Moreover, on this forum, it furthers the argument that some have forwarded that their experience is so profound that it is of universal value. The "I've owned 25 Toyotas and I've only spent $2.50 on repairs so EVERYONE who takes care of them WILL have the same outcome... how could it be any other way?".

So do we completely abandon the only and most scientific tools at our disposal? Are we, instead, supposed to embrace the opinions and prejudices of our acquaintances; people whose knowledge, though broad by individual standards, is a mere drop in the bucket of human experience? WHAT WOULD YOU REPLACE SURVEYS WITH?

My point is that 2 people's experience HAS to be more conclusive than 1, and 10,000 is perhaps as much as a thousand times better than that even if you feel that scale begins to mitigate the value of the results.

I know that's a lot of questions, but if you cast aspersions on these organizations and their techniques, they at least deserve a detailed and specific explanation of your criticisms.