tplife wrote:
Those reviews I cited from C.R. Magazine are from subscribers like myself, we do lengthy surveys each year on our vehicles, appliances, and other consumer products. They also pretend to be an average shopper and buy an unprepared vehicle for rigorous scientific testing. They are "independent and reliable", unlike JD P'ers or other companies that accept $ for advertising and product placement. Because "past performance predicts future reliability", their comprehensive ratings are useful in predicting outcomes. Personally,I'm Ford and GMC certified (gotta make a $ between jobs as a chemist sometimes) and in my experience each model usually last around 10 years, and parts don't change 100% every year, so there's a lot of carryover with small improvements over the life of the model decade. If you want to buy the least reliable cars on the road, more power to you and your mechanic, lol. The "statistical conclusions" are there in print and online, but you have to borrow the issue or buy a subscription. If a product maker uses their name in advertising, they are as vicious as Disney for stomping out illegal infringement to protect their reputation. I've been taking their advice for over 30 years, and outside of their "social issue" stances, the product advice is as good and saved me a lot of $ and aggravation. :@
You are an engineer and I value your opinion so let me ask you a practical question. Let's say the defect rate of the new Jeep is 1 in 200 making it the most unreliable car on the road. Let's also say that this 1 in 200 rate results in thousands of cars in the shop for the same defect, would you buy the car if it, otherwise, fit your needs?
At 1 in 200, you are unlikely to personally have any problems with the vehicle. Statistically, it may be the worst, but the odds are in your favor. What would you do?
