From: mark@wdcwdc.sps.mot.com (Mark Shaw)
Subject: Re: Survey impartiality (was Re: Profits to Japan?)
Organization: Motorola Western MCU Design Center, Chandler Arizona
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:45:23 GMT

In article <1dmbcmINNc9v@armory.centerline.com>, jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
|> I don't think that was the point, I thought the point was that given
|> cars of roughly equal quality you tend to report what you're expected
|> to report -- ie if you have a car with a couple of minor problems that
|> you expect to be high quality you say you liked it, but if you have a
|> car with a couple of minor problems that you expect to be low quality
|> you complain about it.  I feel that's a good paraphrase of what he was
|> theorizing.

Good paraphrasing.  That's was my point (now why couldn't I have said it so well:-)

|> Major problems don't enter into it.  I also don't agree that it's the
|> major stuff that matters -- the minor things are annoyances too and a
|> couple of minor things can be a real hassle.
|> 
|> One thing that nobody mentioned is that customer service might affect
|> the reports at least as much as general opinion.  If I have a couple
|> of minor problems but the dealer always fixes them correctly, quickly,
|> and the first time I'm much less likely to report that I've had
|> problems with the car than if I have a couple of minor problems that I
|> need to bring the car in half a dozen times to get fixed.
|> 
|> Given some of the dealers out there I'd believe that unnecessary
|> customer aggravation could certainly be the result of bad ratings on
|> some cars, and in my experience a lot of domestic dealers have pretty
|> bad customer service.

This was one of my second points and it also born out in my past experience.
Our '85 Pontiac Grand Am had a few annoying problems that the dealer
was just plain unable or unwilling to fix.  One was a rattling motor mount
under hard acceleration.  It had actually collapsed over time so that there
was metal on metal under high torque.  Their solution was to jack up the engine
and put a piece of 1/4 inch hose in between.  Then they had the gall to charge
$25 for the warranty call.  When I took it to another dealer in disgust, the
other dealer replaced the whole mount, no questions asked, for the same $25 fee.

In some cases I have owned so-called poor quality cars that I was totally pleased
with because the service was always fast, courteous, and reasonable.  And this is
one complaint I have heard from my Japanese car owning friends.  Things may last
a long time, but when they go, look out!  The replacement parts are hard to find,
only available from the dealer, and they cost an arm-and-a-leg.   The
price/availability of spares is a serious consideration.  Also you must take 
into account whether the warranty requires excessively high priced and/or
frequent maintenance at the manufacturer's dealership.  I have seen some people
go in and get $700 "tune-ups" on their so-called "reliable" car. 

|> >>It's quite possible that most Crown Victoria owners are biased against
|> >>the Japanese (ask yourself which major age group owns Crown Vics, and
|> >>why they might be particularly anti-Japanese).  It works both ways.

But I would guess that most people in that implied age group wouldn't
spend $X per year on some magazine to tell them what kind of car to buy.
(Good grief, could I be getting that old too?  Nah, I still wouldn't buy anything
like a Crown Vic in the first place!)

It would be real nice if CU would publish how many respondents are included in
their survey, versus the number of that model were sold each year.  Based on the
general premise, past history and reputation of CU it would be interesting
to see the demographics of CU subscribers.  I'm not sure whether CU is the result
of its subscribers or visa-versus.

Mark