Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:56:01 GMT From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenospam.com> Subject: Re: 2003 9-3 with 78,000kms - am i making a mistake?
"still me" <wheeledBobnospamo.com> wrote in message news:qfl9b3h1asuct2eoqevrkcusl375rbvnrhnospamcom... > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:24:34 -0400, Konan <kohoonospamo.net> wrote: > >>bozo wrote: >>> A couple of other things to keep in mind - Consumers' Reports is basing >>> its >>> statements on comments and observations made and reported by owners, >> >>Is there a better way to get facts? > > Yes, in a statistical survey. [snip] > The first rule in statistics it that to get a truly accurate sampling, > your sample has to be truly random. Their's is no where near that. > What they do is solicit opinions from their subscribers. There is no > attempt to draw an accurate random sample from the population of > vehicle owners. In addition, they take opinions, not repair records > and call them facts. It just gets worse from there, as they draw > averages and ratings from totally invalid samples. From a statistics > point of view, what they do is pure bunk. It leads to things like the > famous headline "Dewey Wins". Except CR is worse. > > To add to that, even with good samples, their data is very misleading. [snip] > CR doesn't tell you what > kind of problem it is, they just give you a less than full red circle. I agree that Consumer Reports' ratings are generally useless. I have participated in these surveys. The faults are readily apparent and exactly as you describe, possibly worse, because they don't provide good measurement guidelines that can be applied in the same way by each reviewer/subscriber. As you state, it ends up a compilation of opinions and gives no indication of the severity of the problem(s). The instructions from CR ask if any work was done on a particular system. This penalizes companies that take preventative action through service advisories. I have a Taurus SHO that I purchased new and has operated flawlessly for 17 years. I still own and drive it. As a courtesy to me, Ford replaced my clutch, flywheel, front brake rotors and starter motor even though I didn't have a problem with any of these items. Based on the instructions CR provided, I was obliged to indicate that work was done on these components. This gave an unfair and inaccurately negative report on the car. Work related to these service advisories wasn't only provided to me, but to all owners for the first 2 1/2 years of this model's production. By CR's standards, everyone had failures in the brake, electrical and transmission systems. By their report, there were issues with major systems in the car. The ratings were bad -- and unfounded.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
