itguy08 wrote:
IdaD wrote:
Failed statistics in college, huh? Ford probably sells 50 times as many vehicles a year as Lincoln, but you just did a straight average between the two to figure your "corporate" dependability? Ditto Ram vs Fiat. Good grief man, that's a pathetic attempt at "analyzing data."
Thanks for the graphic you posted, though - nice to see Ram up that high on the list.
Moving the goalposts because you don't like the data? The entire world knows a Lincoln is a Ford with more sound deadening. The drivetrain and other bits are the same as a Ford. Similar story with GMC vs Chevrolet. The one interesting thing is to see the "premium" brands like GMC, Lincoln, Lexus, do better than their standard counterparts.
You can see who sold what here:September 2015 Sales
How should we do it? Weighted average? That would also look bad for Chrysler as they sold a lot of those abysmal Jeeps, lots of bad Dodges, and a few mediocre Chryslers and some decent Rams...
So how should one analyst the data? Straight line average seems to be the best to me for all makers....
Please explain how I moved the goalposts.
FWIW, I could care less what looks good or bad for Chrysler or FCA. I don't own a Jeep or a Fiat, I own a Ram and a Honda, and both of them are above average on your graphic and that's a positive thing.
But to answer your question, yes of course you have to weight the numbers to account for the vehicles actually sold. Use your head for a minute. If you sell 25 Fords with 188 problems per 100 vehicles and 1 Lincoln with 118 problems per 100 vehicles, doing a straight 50/50 average of the two numbers is nonsensical.
So, because I evidently have too much time on my hands, using 2014 sales numbers the "corporate dependability" figure for Ford/Lincoln is 185.324. That's because there were slightly more than 25 Ford branded vehicles sold for each Lincoln branded vehicle sold. The figure for Ram/Chrysler/Dodge/Fiat/Jeep works out to 179.6207.
Sorry that didn't work out better for you.