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 20:58:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.164130.2054@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen) writes:
|> In article <1dlv33INNc3b@armory.centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
|> >This doesn't invalidate the theory.  His theory was for minor defects,
|> >not major ones (read it again, he's pretty explicit).
|> I'll go reread it.
|> 
|> Wait a sec. Then you agree CU reliability ratings
|> can point out problems with cars? Why is it so useless then? And if
|> the discrepency is only with minor stuff, then what is your point.
|> It's the major stuff that matters.
|> 
|> 
|> >>Why is it that the Ford Crown Victora had great reliability while the
|> >>Chevy Caprice Sucked? At the time(late 80's) they were very similar and
|> >>very American. Did these Ford owners think the cars
|> >>were Japanese?
|> >
|> >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.
|> >
|> I think you missed my point:
|> 
|> Why would Chevy Caprice owners be any less biased? Those cars were very very
|> similar competeting with the same population. IF society dictates
|> what their impression about the car is, then both should have had
|> similar reliability ratings.

Good point regards Crown Vic versus Caprice maybe negating public opinion.
There is probably no public opinion effect between American makes, but how
did they both do against the Japanese favorite family car -- the Honda Accord?  

My point is that survey results based on solicited input are statistically
faulty when used to imply reliability.  All that can be said is that these
are the most mentioned repairs of respondents.   True statistical methods would
take a sample from ALL owners and track their actual repairs, rather than rely
on the owner's perception of signicance or memory of repairs.  Even the often
touted J.D.Powers reliability data mentions something about "reported" problems.
Cann't any of these agencies actually go out and "tag" cars for tracking?
I think the answer is "it's too expensive or time consuming."  So much for
being truly impartial and unbiased. 

You can find numerous contradictions in the survey data depending on what
perspective you take.  I have owned several of the cars which had "bad"
frequency of repair charts and have found them to not be less reliable, not
experience the most frequent repair, not be more expensive to repair, or
not be more difficult to get repaired.   And I don't think I have some divine 
blessing that keeps me from buying a lemon.  

The only lemon out of some 25+ cars I have owned over the years was Japanese 
(a Honda Civic) and the only car that gave me headaches trying to get it fixed
was an 85 Pontiac Grand Am (and that was the dealer's fault, not the car's fault).
I have also owned two Chevy Celebrities (82 and 88) which have had excellent
reliability.  Tell me how these cars did in the frequency of repair survey?  

Mark