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: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.223726.316@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen) writes:
|> Think of it in the reverse way:
|> 
|> If a car company did in fact make a very unreliable product. Would
|> it in fact show up in the ratings? If a car had a very reliable
|> product would that show up in the ratings?  If not why?

Clearly if every car made by A was unreliable, the data would show that
no matter how you took it.   However, if B made a very reliable product,
but still had some lemons (my so-called Honda lemon) then they could get
an equally poor rating depending on the number of respondents and whether
they considered the failure worth noting.  The fact that there are not
really A type products makes the comparison even less rigorous.

|> >CU really needs to quantify the magnitude of costs for maintenance and 
|> >repair.  But................
|> 
|> They have a rating for the cost of having the car, which they call the
|> cost index which  is not entirely dependant on just repairs. Ever
|> notice that?

Ah-ha! Yet another to-be-defined index of CU's making?

|> >It's a cost/benefit trade-off.   Not everyone can afford a Mercedes.
|> >Nor are there and infinite supply of quality cars.
|> 
|> You say it then gets scewed by the impression people have of american
|> or foreign cars in general. I venture that this impression is much
|> weaker than you guess because who is going to buy a brand new car they
|> do not like???? It's a big investment and the Japanese compete in the
|> same price range believe it or not. If a person really wanted a
|> Japanese car they would have got one. I don't understand your
|> reasoning.

I should have elaborated that I wasn't talking about new cars, but using
the CU ratings to select a used car. In which case, the supply is limited
and the pricing is more in the favor of the "poorer" quality American cars.

|> >|> Why would the Suzuki Samauri, something CU trashed have an excellent
|> >|> reliability rating.
|> >|> ............. It cannot predict anything about the probability of a
|> >|> failure occurring.  Your paradox example above shows just that.
|>
|> And, what paradox example?

Why would they not recommend a car that was perfectly reliable?

|> >...... To assume the future based on the past is pure negative
|> >CU thinking at its best.
|> 
|> But, then you are changing the variables. What about a person who is
|> thinking of buying the car with the old exhasut system would 
|> the info be valuable for them? 

It would be if the results showed them what the old system was.  It doesn't.
It just waves its hand and says --- rrrrrrrt! Bad Exhaust! Bad Exhaust!

|> Every company makes a lemon, what matters is who makes *more* lemons.

Lemons are not predictable since they are usually considered a collection
of defects within the same unit.  The legal community would like you to 
think otherwise.
 
|> Of course, I am just saying the info is valuable, maybe not
|> statiscally rigorous but still valuable, because the good and bad
|> will show up. 

My point is that lacking statistical validity, the data can be as much 
misleading as useful.  What would a person do?  Always avoid cars with
lots of black dots just to be on the safe side?  What really, really,
really sits in my gut is that CU presents this data which is based on 
volunteer responses and lets people move to the conclusion that it
is a true representation of a reliability prediction.  When Olds finally
admitted that they were putting Chevy engines in their cars CU screamed
loud and clear "misleading, fraud, etc."   I fail to see the difference
in CU presenting "chevy" information with an "olds" wrapper.  

I don't use such results because it represents the reduction of responses
to a simplistic go/no-go analysis.  It is devoid of the information that
would train car buyers in what to look for on their own.  CU should be
spending its efforts educating the public on what is the essence of good
design.  For example if certain cars have bad exhaust systems, what is
the characteristic across all makers and models that should be avoided?
CU is in the business of reporting negatives.  Back when I used to 
subscribe to it, I got depressed at all the negatives and lack of useful
selection criteria.  They acted as though they wanted you to be slaves
to their analyses.  After awhile, I began to look at the cover for the
categories they were going to evaluate and make a guess at what I would
buy before looking.   Either my guess was correct or they would recommend
a product with a model number you couldn't find or from a manufacturer
who doesn't sell in your area.   I got tired of wasting my money on 
another slick un-recyclable use of a tree.

You apparently have a better view of what they provide or they have
changed dramatically in the past 20 years.  If you think their data
matters to you, so be it.

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.autos