http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3 gains, J.
D. Power says - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/10f50e549945325d?hl=en
* 1999 sentra 2 litre - How many miles will this last? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/c8b66ff45c73eb4d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3
gains, J.D. Power says
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/10f50e549945325d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 17 2010 11:43 pm
From: "Dave D"
"dr_jeff" <utz@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:pfSdnW3IC5egM4fRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of overall
>> build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2%
>> failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>
> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I am
> incorrect, prove it.
NO! You made the claim - ergo you provide the evidence to support your
rebuttal
>
> If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
> shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
> hundreds of thousands of components. Buildings would be falling down all
> the time, because girders would be breaking during construction.
Comparing the space shuttle and buildings to automobiles is apples and
oranges therefore, a worthless comparison.
>
> If you were correct, then the average number of defects would be about 2
> per 100 cars, not 100 to 200 per 100 cars, as it is.
>
> This has been pointed out to you in the past. And you still don't
> understand that 100 problems per 100 vehicles is a not a 2% failure rate.
>
>> that is why they all have a warranty, even Rolls Royce. Differences of
>> 1% are meaningless. EVERY manufacturer is making great cars today.
>
> Maybe they all make some good cars, but not all cars are great.
How very true. Not all cars are even moderately acceptable
>
>> The only REAL difference among them is style and price.
>
> Really?
>
>> My advise, when people ask for my advise because of my experience in
>> building, selling, and servicing vehicles, is to test drive those three
>> or more that best suits your needs, then get a total DRIVE HOME PRICE
>> including selling price, dealer add-ons and financing costs, if you must
>> finance, from at least TWO dealers of the top two or three models you
>> choose then buy your vehicle from the dealer nearest you home that gives
>> you the best price and has the lowest shop rate.
>>
>> It never made sense to me when I was in retail, why some people are
>> willing to pay 20% to 30% more for some of our brands because they
>> thought they were "better."
>
> Gee buying something better for 20% or 30% more is a good idea, if it is
> better. I paid a lot more for my Apples than I would have for HP's or
> Dells, but I got better computers. I definitely got a better buy with more
> more expensive Apple than had I bought a cheaper HP or Dell.
This is an opinion not a proven nor proveable fact.
>
>> Thinking you will not get one of the 2%, is foolish at best.
>
> What 2%? Just about all cars have defects, with defects around 100 per 100
> vehicles.
>
> You didn't know what you were talking about before.
>
> And you don't know what you're talking about now.
And you do?!!!!!!!! Since when? That would be a major change!!!
DaveD
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 18 2010 3:15 am
From: dr_jeff
Dave D wrote:
> "dr_jeff" <utz@msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:pfSdnW3IC5egM4fRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of overall
>>> build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2%
>>> failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I am
>> incorrect, prove it.
>
> NO! You made the claim - ergo you provide the evidence to support your
> rebuttal
Did you notice I did? There is a failure rate of 108 per 100 cars or
108% failure rate.
>> If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
>> shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
>> hundreds of thousands of components. Buildings would be falling down all
>> the time, because girders would be breaking during construction.
> Comparing the space shuttle and buildings to automobiles is apples and
> oranges therefore, a worthless comparison.
Not when the OP said that *ALL* manufactured good have a 2% failure rate.
>> If you were correct, then the average number of defects would be about 2
>> per 100 cars, not 100 to 200 per 100 cars, as it is.
>>
>> This has been pointed out to you in the past. And you still don't
>> understand that 100 problems per 100 vehicles is a not a 2% failure rate
No comments:
Post a Comment