CONSUMER REPORTS
11-12-2003 | 06:43 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
It does not matter how obvious those T-bird signals were in
clear weather. Approach any traffic signal in heavy fog. If
green or orange, it is seen with sufficient time. If red, not
observed until car is too close. Red does not cut through
fog, snow whiteout, or heavy rain. Orange does. Its simple
science.
Delays and other problems with same red bulb trying to be a
signal light AND a brake light AND an emergency flasher - all
demonstrate why red rear turn signals are only put on cars
designed by 'bean counters'. Now Honda is getting so MBA
oriented as to put red turn signals on 03 Civic and Odessy.
This is bad news to anyone who has been used to twenty five
years of superior designs from Honda. They all used orange
rear turn signals for good reason. It suggests the same bean
counters that created those terrible GM products and those
Henry Ford (pre-1981) products are now designing Hondas.
In the meantime, don't confuse how well your brain responds
to red with something completely different - how well red can
be seen by the human eye. Red is the worst color for
inclement weather. When are those signals most required? In
inclement weather. When the eye cannot detect red light.
Orange is what 'car guys' design into cars. Red is what 'bean
counters' demand to cut costs - human life be damned.
Red turn signals on Hondas and no side guard protection for
doors suggests that anti-innovators are now getting control of
Honda designs.
W Bittle wrote:
>> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
>> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
>> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
>> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
>> red rear turn signals.
>
> Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals
> in the rear. If you could miss that baby, you should not be on
> the road. But, seriously. I always thought something like my
> 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that full across the back light
> with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal arrangement
> similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
> a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind
> you at night like some of the real bright amber turn signals,
> many of which rival the headlights. During the day, I actually
> find the amber signals harder to see then the red ones. And to
> this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it stands out like an
> emergency vehicle.
>
> With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like
> being behind the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup.
> They have a goofy brake switch and a signal blinker that hesitates
> giving a situation where the driver hits the brakes then hits the
> turn signal and the light on the side he is signaling goes out for
> almost a full second before flashing. This gives the impression he
> is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would fix this
> annoying and dangerous problem.
clear weather. Approach any traffic signal in heavy fog. If
green or orange, it is seen with sufficient time. If red, not
observed until car is too close. Red does not cut through
fog, snow whiteout, or heavy rain. Orange does. Its simple
science.
Delays and other problems with same red bulb trying to be a
signal light AND a brake light AND an emergency flasher - all
demonstrate why red rear turn signals are only put on cars
designed by 'bean counters'. Now Honda is getting so MBA
oriented as to put red turn signals on 03 Civic and Odessy.
This is bad news to anyone who has been used to twenty five
years of superior designs from Honda. They all used orange
rear turn signals for good reason. It suggests the same bean
counters that created those terrible GM products and those
Henry Ford (pre-1981) products are now designing Hondas.
In the meantime, don't confuse how well your brain responds
to red with something completely different - how well red can
be seen by the human eye. Red is the worst color for
inclement weather. When are those signals most required? In
inclement weather. When the eye cannot detect red light.
Orange is what 'car guys' design into cars. Red is what 'bean
counters' demand to cut costs - human life be damned.
Red turn signals on Hondas and no side guard protection for
doors suggests that anti-innovators are now getting control of
Honda designs.
W Bittle wrote:
>> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
>> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
>> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
>> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
>> red rear turn signals.
>
> Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals
> in the rear. If you could miss that baby, you should not be on
> the road. But, seriously. I always thought something like my
> 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that full across the back light
> with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal arrangement
> similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
> a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind
> you at night like some of the real bright amber turn signals,
> many of which rival the headlights. During the day, I actually
> find the amber signals harder to see then the red ones. And to
> this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it stands out like an
> emergency vehicle.
>
> With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like
> being behind the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup.
> They have a goofy brake switch and a signal blinker that hesitates
> giving a situation where the driver hits the brakes then hits the
> turn signal and the light on the side he is signaling goes out for
> almost a full second before flashing. This gives the impression he
> is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would fix this
> annoying and dangerous problem.
11-12-2003 | 06:43 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
It does not matter how obvious those T-bird signals were in
clear weather. Approach any traffic signal in heavy fog. If
green or orange, it is seen with sufficient time. If red, not
observed until car is too close. Red does not cut through
fog, snow whiteout, or heavy rain. Orange does. Its simple
science.
Delays and other problems with same red bulb trying to be a
signal light AND a brake light AND an emergency flasher - all
demonstrate why red rear turn signals are only put on cars
designed by 'bean counters'. Now Honda is getting so MBA
oriented as to put red turn signals on 03 Civic and Odessy.
This is bad news to anyone who has been used to twenty five
years of superior designs from Honda. They all used orange
rear turn signals for good reason. It suggests the same bean
counters that created those terrible GM products and those
Henry Ford (pre-1981) products are now designing Hondas.
In the meantime, don't confuse how well your brain responds
to red with something completely different - how well red can
be seen by the human eye. Red is the worst color for
inclement weather. When are those signals most required? In
inclement weather. When the eye cannot detect red light.
Orange is what 'car guys' design into cars. Red is what 'bean
counters' demand to cut costs - human life be damned.
Red turn signals on Hondas and no side guard protection for
doors suggests that anti-innovators are now getting control of
Honda designs.
W Bittle wrote:
>> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
>> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
>> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
>> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
>> red rear turn signals.
>
> Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals
> in the rear. If you could miss that baby, you should not be on
> the road. But, seriously. I always thought something like my
> 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that full across the back light
> with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal arrangement
> similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
> a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind
> you at night like some of the real bright amber turn signals,
> many of which rival the headlights. During the day, I actually
> find the amber signals harder to see then the red ones. And to
> this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it stands out like an
> emergency vehicle.
>
> With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like
> being behind the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup.
> They have a goofy brake switch and a signal blinker that hesitates
> giving a situation where the driver hits the brakes then hits the
> turn signal and the light on the side he is signaling goes out for
> almost a full second before flashing. This gives the impression he
> is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would fix this
> annoying and dangerous problem.
clear weather. Approach any traffic signal in heavy fog. If
green or orange, it is seen with sufficient time. If red, not
observed until car is too close. Red does not cut through
fog, snow whiteout, or heavy rain. Orange does. Its simple
science.
Delays and other problems with same red bulb trying to be a
signal light AND a brake light AND an emergency flasher - all
demonstrate why red rear turn signals are only put on cars
designed by 'bean counters'. Now Honda is getting so MBA
oriented as to put red turn signals on 03 Civic and Odessy.
This is bad news to anyone who has been used to twenty five
years of superior designs from Honda. They all used orange
rear turn signals for good reason. It suggests the same bean
counters that created those terrible GM products and those
Henry Ford (pre-1981) products are now designing Hondas.
In the meantime, don't confuse how well your brain responds
to red with something completely different - how well red can
be seen by the human eye. Red is the worst color for
inclement weather. When are those signals most required? In
inclement weather. When the eye cannot detect red light.
Orange is what 'car guys' design into cars. Red is what 'bean
counters' demand to cut costs - human life be damned.
Red turn signals on Hondas and no side guard protection for
doors suggests that anti-innovators are now getting control of
Honda designs.
W Bittle wrote:
>> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
>> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
>> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
>> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
>> red rear turn signals.
>
> Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals
> in the rear. If you could miss that baby, you should not be on
> the road. But, seriously. I always thought something like my
> 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that full across the back light
> with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal arrangement
> similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
> a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind
> you at night like some of the real bright amber turn signals,
> many of which rival the headlights. During the day, I actually
> find the amber signals harder to see then the red ones. And to
> this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it stands out like an
> emergency vehicle.
>
> With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like
> being behind the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup.
> They have a goofy brake switch and a signal blinker that hesitates
> giving a situation where the driver hits the brakes then hits the
> turn signal and the light on the side he is signaling goes out for
> almost a full second before flashing. This gives the impression he
> is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would fix this
> annoying and dangerous problem.
11-12-2003 | 10:43 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On 11/12/2003 4:33 PM Bill B. Johnson spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
11-12-2003 | 10:43 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On 11/12/2003 4:33 PM Bill B. Johnson spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
11-12-2003 | 10:43 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On 11/12/2003 4:33 PM Bill B. Johnson spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
11-12-2003 | 10:43 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On 11/12/2003 4:33 PM Bill B. Johnson spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
> In article <Gufsb.105568$PD3.5452818@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "xxxxxxxx"
> <carpediem@netrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Consumer reports says the new Buick Regals exceed the quality of Honda and
>> Toyota now
>> ed/ontario
>
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars. The
> very best tests are long term test results. I feel certain that if they
> compared a 2004 Buick Regal to a 2004 Toyota or Honda five years from
> now--we all know that the Honda and Toyota would beat the Buick Regal.
> American cars usually run really great for a couple of years and after
> that--they start having all sorts of major problems. There are some
> exceptions but I know from experience that it happens very often with many
> cars made by American companies. A local mechanic said that he hates
> Hondas and Toyotas since they rarely ever break down with major problems.
> He said that he loves American cars since they keep him in business.
Although it is true that Consumer Reports buys and tests cars, the
results reported above (leaving out significant details, I might add)
come from people who bought, own and drive the cars. You know - long
term test results.
Bear in mind that the results being collected and relayed by Consumer
Reports are comparative; the reliability and serviceability information
of the automobiles are gathered and reported so that the reader can
evaluate the experience of many owners at once, and compare that
collective experience to that of owners of other year models, and other
models of the same vintage.
I have 31,000 miles (not kilometers) on my 2003 Accord, purchased 27 Jan
of this year; while surely not average, it's also not terrifically
uncommon. I think that qualifies for 'long-term' in one sense of the
word, even though I've only had the car a little over 9 months.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in high school was my blood alcohol content.
11-13-2003 | 02:10 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
11-13-2003 | 02:10 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
11-13-2003 | 02:10 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
11-13-2003 | 02:10 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
wrote:
>Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>black marks both for owner satisfaction
This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
most seemingly related.
> and depreciation.
This part, I can believe or understand :-)
11-13-2003 | 06:21 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
> red rear turn signals.
Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals in the rear.
If you could miss that baby, you should not be on the road. But, seriously.
I always thought something like my 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that
full across the back light with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal
arrangement similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind you at night
like some of the real bright amber turn signals, many of which rival the
headlights. During the day, I actually find the amber signals harder to see
then the red ones. And to this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it
stands out like an emergency vehicle.
With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like being behind
the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup. They have a goofy brake
switch and a signal blinker that hesitates giving a situation where the
driver hits the brakes then hits the turn signal and the light on the side
he is signaling goes out for almost a full second before flashing. This
gives the impression he is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would
fix this annoying and dangerous problem.
11-13-2003 | 06:21 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
> red rear turn signals.
Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals in the rear.
If you could miss that baby, you should not be on the road. But, seriously.
I always thought something like my 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that
full across the back light with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal
arrangement similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind you at night
like some of the real bright amber turn signals, many of which rival the
headlights. During the day, I actually find the amber signals harder to see
then the red ones. And to this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it
stands out like an emergency vehicle.
With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like being behind
the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup. They have a goofy brake
switch and a signal blinker that hesitates giving a situation where the
driver hits the brakes then hits the turn signal and the light on the side
he is signaling goes out for almost a full second before flashing. This
gives the impression he is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would
fix this annoying and dangerous problem.
11-13-2003 | 06:21 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
> red rear turn signals.
Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals in the rear.
If you could miss that baby, you should not be on the road. But, seriously.
I always thought something like my 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that
full across the back light with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal
arrangement similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind you at night
like some of the real bright amber turn signals, many of which rival the
headlights. During the day, I actually find the amber signals harder to see
then the red ones. And to this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it
stands out like an emergency vehicle.
With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like being behind
the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup. They have a goofy brake
switch and a signal blinker that hesitates giving a situation where the
driver hits the brakes then hits the turn signal and the light on the side
he is signaling goes out for almost a full second before flashing. This
gives the impression he is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would
fix this annoying and dangerous problem.
11-13-2003 | 06:21 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> All acceptable cars use orange turn signals. Necessary and
> essential to human safety. Those who know cars also know
> that red rear turn signals cannot be seen in inclement
> weather. Only anti-American cars such as Chevys kept using
> red rear turn signals.
Uh, I had a 65 Thunderbird with the sequential red turn signals in the rear.
If you could miss that baby, you should not be on the road. But, seriously.
I always thought something like my 01 2 dr. Accord should have used that
full across the back light with a 3 bulb per side sequential turn signal
arrangement similar to the 65 - 71 Tbird. You just plain could not miss such
a big and active turn signal. And, being red, it did not blind you at night
like some of the real bright amber turn signals, many of which rival the
headlights. During the day, I actually find the amber signals harder to see
then the red ones. And to this day, when I see an old Tbird turning, it
stands out like an emergency vehicle.
With respect to trucks. I'm with you. There is nothing like being behind
the infamous "Blinky Light" ford F series pickup. They have a goofy brake
switch and a signal blinker that hesitates giving a situation where the
driver hits the brakes then hits the turn signal and the light on the side
he is signaling goes out for almost a full second before flashing. This
gives the impression he is actually turning the other way. I wish Ford would
fix this annoying and dangerous problem.
11-13-2003 | 09:40 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On 11/13/03 1:10 AM, in article kjb6rvoaao0jkocvao5tf6hnp0fdldohkr@4ax.com,
"Steve Lee" <hate@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>> car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>> Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>> black marks both for owner satisfaction
>
> This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
> low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
> what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
> rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
> most seemingly related.
>
>> and depreciation.
>
> This part, I can believe or understand :-)
The owner satisfaction reflects the answers go questions along the lines of
"do you like the car?" & "knowing what you know now, would you buy another
one?". Maybe the engine is a dog. Maybe it is just boring to drive. Maybe
the dealer treated them like dirt when they came back for service. I don't
believe the categories are necessarily related. Just because a car is
reliable doesn't mean you have to like it.
"Steve Lee" <hate@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:31:29 GMT, "John" <hutch@dontspamplease.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Only based on '03 reliability scores. I'm subscribed to consumer reports
>> car service and looking at all three right now. (Assume you mean vs. the
>> Accord and Camry). Buick Regal got a perfect score for reliability, but
>> black marks both for owner satisfaction
>
> This is rather perplexing to me. How can the owner satisfaction be
> low when the reliability score is high? I know you're just reporting
> what's on the magazine, so this question isn't directed to you, but
> rather, am curious about the two different scores in areas which are
> most seemingly related.
>
>> and depreciation.
>
> This part, I can believe or understand :-)
The owner satisfaction reflects the answers go questions along the lines of
"do you like the car?" & "knowing what you know now, would you buy another
one?". Maybe the engine is a dog. Maybe it is just boring to drive. Maybe
the dealer treated them like dirt when they came back for service. I don't
believe the categories are necessarily related. Just because a car is
reliable doesn't mean you have to like it.