CONSUMER REPORTS
11-13-2003 | 09:40 AM
#31
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.
11-13-2003 | 09:40 AM
#32
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.
11-13-2003 | 09:40 AM
#33
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.
11-13-2003 | 09:02 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
11-13-2003 | 09:02 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
11-13-2003 | 09:02 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
11-13-2003 | 09:02 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
> The problem with many companies that TEST vehicles such as Consumer
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
> Reports and Car and Driver magazine is that they test only new cars.
<snip>
> 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.
Having received CR surveys, I can confirm this is true. They rate new cars,
and they survey owners of new and used cars. That's why when you look at the
time series ratings (e.g. 96-03) you usually see a decline in the ratings
each year. Problems with the late models emerge over time.
11-14-2003 | 12:02 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:43:57 GMT, Dave Kelsen <kelsen@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
11-14-2003 | 12:02 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:43:57 GMT, Dave Kelsen <kelsen@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
11-14-2003 | 12:02 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:43:57 GMT, Dave Kelsen <kelsen@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
11-14-2003 | 12:02 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CONSUMER REPORTS
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:43:57 GMT, Dave Kelsen <kelsen@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
wrote:
>
>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.
I wouldn't call that long term. With as many miles as Americans drive,
and as high as the prices are on new cars, I personally expect well
over 100,000 miles without major (i.e. internal engine or tranny) work
on the car. I have 160,000 miles on my 1994 Civic, with only a timing
belt, 3 CV axles, a clutch master cylinder, a battery, a muffler, and
oil/antifreeze for maintenance costs. That is long term. My buddy has
a 1999 Accord Coupe 4-Cylinder, and he has 157k on his, with the same
maintenance history, except for no muffler, 2 CV axles and his was the
clutch slave. I would like to see American cars pull this off. I see
00 and 01 Neons and Stratuses all the time which look far older and
sound far worse. My wife's 99 Stratus is a piece of junk, with 2 fuel
pumps gone (to the tune of $1000 parts/labor), a battery, alignment
problems continuously ===> tires can't stay good, and suspension
issues, with only 80,000 miles. From working on aircraft for the
military, I can tell you that on those, the more you use an airplane,
the less work per hour of aircraft use you put into it. I see that in
the salesmen's cars as well. You see the driving salesmen put 200,000
miles on a car in 3 years with no maintenance except oil changes, but
try that across a 10 year period.
Nate
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2TONE_93GT
General Automotive Chat
1
11-21-2006 06:22 PM
Rev. Tom Wenndt
Hyundai Mailing List
24
05-01-2006 09:21 AM
Rev. Tom Wenndt
Hyundai Mailing List
0
04-28-2006 10:56 AM
Rev. Tom Wenndt
Hyundai Mailing List
0
04-28-2006 10:56 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)