Help show Consumer Reports how it's done

[greyghost04]

I'm not coming out until the bullets stop flying and the smoke clears.

[mkaresh]

I do help support the forum, just not monetarily.

I provide a free service. People who join the research get free access to all results, including a preview weeks before the results were officially released.

I don't earn a few hundred dollars when a member here buys something from me.

The only reason you're claiming that the results are biased and skewed--something you have no evidence for, because there isn't any--is that you don't like them. You've got the cause and effect reversed.

If and when CR has a similar reliability result--and this is likely though we measure somewhat different things--then you'll probably be claiming that their results are also biased and skewed. And yet in this thread, when it suits your purposes, you cite them for support of your preferred outcome.

I prefer to start with evidence and then reach conclusions, rather than the other way around.

Once again, I'm not the one ruining anything. If you want Cadillacs to have stronger resale values, then don't discount them or offer incentives on them and hope that they hold up well as they age. Which they might--TrueDelta's current results reflect only initial reliability.

My approach, by encouraging better quality, will actually benefit resale values more than your approach (burying unfavorable data) in the long run.

One thing you don't mention: my press releases have also focused on the improvement in reliability from 2007 to 2008 with the Lambdas. The 2008s require about half as many repairs as the 2007s. Now, it would have been even better if the 2007s had required relatively few repairs. But where GM has made an improvement, I've also publicized it. It's just up to them--not me--to actually make the improvement.

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by greyghost04

I'm not coming out until the bullets stop flying and the smoke clears.

Wish I could do the same...

[Cadillac Tony]

Whatever you say, chief. There's not a publication in the world that doesn't agree (except yours) that Cadillac and GM quality has improved leaps and bounds in the last 5 years. People can draw their own conclusions from that.

It speaks volumes about you that you choose to ignore my repeated suggestion that you support the community that you are mining for free data, but if you feel Sal is not entitled to a few bucks for providing you with both the bandwidth and the owners to compile your data then carry on.

[mkaresh]

Ignore your suggestion? I've responded to your suggestion multiple times, at length. What speaks volumes is your ability to overlook my repeated explanations. I suppose those responses don't count because I'm not doing what you tell me to do.

One more time: I support this forum and others by doing exactly what I told Sal I'd do, and that's refer people to his forums from my site, and credit them for any results they make possible.

I also contribute the forum by posting the survey results--in this case months before they're available from any other source. Now, they might not be results everyone likes, but they are the results. And they're not available anywhere else except on my own site.

I still fail to see how my relationship with Sal and this forum is any business of yours. As far as I can tell, you're simply trying to stir up trouble because, once again, you do not like the result.

And we're not talking about "Cadillacs" here. This thread is about one specific Cadillac, the 2008 CTS. Which TrueDelta first provided a result for back in February, and which other sources have yet to provide a result for.

Finally, you say that every other publication in the world says Cadillac's reliability has improved. That's a pretty strong statement. How many of those publications actually collect the data to support such a statement? Just one: Consumer Reports. And if you look at that source, which you seemed to like earlier, you'll find that every single Cadillac model has a reliability score below the average, in some cases well below the average. Maybe this is an improvement, but it's still not good.

[Cadillac Tony]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I support this forum and others by doing exactly what I told Sal I'd do, and that's refer people to his forums from my site, and credit them for any results they make possible.

I also contribute the forum by posting the survey results

Wow- you publish your survey results for free. What a guy. I'm sure that helps pay for the bandwidth bill every month, not to mention all those people you refer here after reading in your reports how crappy a GM product is. "To learn more about this crappy car, visit this web site". Your generosity is overwhelming.

Originally Posted by mkaresh

How many of those publications actually collect the data to support such a statement? Just one: Consumer Reports.

Actually, no- JD Power & Associates release their Vehicle Dependability study also.

"The study, which measures problems experienced by original owners of 3-year-old (2004 model year) vehicles, finds that Buick and Lexus tie for the top rank position with a score of 145 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100). Following in the top five rankings are Cadillac, Mercury and Honda, respectively. " http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2007130

So, according to JD Powers' reliability study, the order is:

1-Lexus/Buick (Tie)
3-Cadillac
4-Mercury
5-Honda

That's 3 out of 5 American, and 2 out of 5 GM. Seems to contradict your results, no?

I'm on the ground, so I see the problems as they come in. If there were rampant problems with a model I would be seeing them in Service- I'm not. As many CTSs as I've sold, and only a tiny handful neededing any issues corrected says to me that something is amiss with your data collection method.

[mkaresh]

Nowhere on my site do I use the word "crappy." That you have to substitute your own words for my own indicates that you're exaggerating and distorting what I actually say--otherwise an exact quote would do.

I didn't mention J.D. Power earlier because they're not exactly a "publication," but that's splitting hairs. Thing is, the current VDS covers 2004 MY cars. We're talking about a 2008 CTS. GM cars have a tendency to require an above average number of repairs early on, then do better when they're a few years old. This shows up with JD Power as well, as GM has long done better in the VDS than the IQS.

At this point, we've gone around in circles long enough. Someone with better judgment than I have would have simply not responded in the first place. You led off by not only saying you were outraged, but by saying that everyone else here should be as well. Essentially, you've tried to stir up a virtual lynch mob and have me strung up. You'd like to kill the research--because you don't like the results.

It says something about this site's members that your desired mob has failed to materialize. Apparently they recognize that shooting the messenger isn't the best way to respond to an unpleasant message.

My problem is that I generally act as if people can be reasoned with, when many times they cannot be. Your initial post should have been enough of a clue that this discussion could go nowhere but downhill.

[Cadillac Tony]

You want your exact words? Here they are (AGAIN):

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Finally, you say that every other publication in the world says Cadillac's reliability has improved. That's a pretty strong statement. How many of those publications actually collect the data to support such a statement? Just one: Consumer Reports. And if you look at that source, which you seemed to like earlier, you'll find that every single Cadillac model has a reliability score below the average, in some cases well below the average.

That's an outright falsehood, since I just proved that JD Power shows Cadillac as the 3rd best nameplate in the world for reliability over a 3 year period. I flat out prove you wrong, and you turn around (again) and attack me and my motives, hoping to change the subject of the discussion.

Originally Posted by mkaresh

GM cars have a tendency to require an above average number of repairs early on, then do better when they're a few years old.

So by your logic, it's better to buy a car that holds up well for 90 days and then falls apart? Sorry, but I'd rather have the car that requires a few minor adjustments early on, and then provides me with the least problems over a 3 year period.

I also am not trying to "stir up a mob"- I'm posting my opinion that your lack of financial support of this forum in return for providing your data is classless. The fact that the forum owner was nice enough to not require a payment doesn't preclude you from doing the right thing. I like your cleverly worded responses about how you don't "as of yet" make money off your web site, or that the press release was not "technically" an Advertisment. You're using a well established web community to gather free data to start a business venture- end of story.

I also contend that your survey methods are flawed and provide results that fly in the face of simliar studies. Gathering car reliability data on an Internet Forum is akin to gathering stats on the Average Health of Americans in an Emergency room. You can take whatever snide jabs you want at me, but it doesn't change either of those facts.

The lack of participation in this thread goes also both ways, since I don't see anyone rushing to defend your pont of view either.

[Southern]

I do tend to side with Tony. I'm just confused as to why I have to defend a Cadillac CTS, that has been nearly flawless for me, in a Cadillac CTS forum.

I think some of the detractors may be winning in that I am thinking of withdrawing my site support and leaving.
In the vernacular, "I don't need this shit day in and day out".

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by Cadillac Tony

You want your exact words? Here they are (AGAIN):

That's an outright falsehood, since I just proved that JD Power shows Cadillac as the 3rd best nameplate in the world for reliability over a 3 year period. I flat out prove you wrong, and you turn around (again) and attack me and my motives, hoping to change the subject of the discussion.

So by your logic, it's better to buy a car that holds up well for 90 days and then falls apart? Sorry, but I'd rather have the car that requires a few minor adjustments early on, and then provides me with the least problems over a 3 year period.

I also am not trying to "stir up a mob"- I'm posting my opinion that your lack of financial support of this forum in return for providing your data is classless. The fact that the forum owner was nice enough to not require a payment doesn't preclude you from doing the right thing. I like your cleverly worded responses about how you don't "as of yet" make money off your web site, or that the press release was not "technically" an Advertisment. You're using a well established web community to gather free data to start a business venture- end of story.

I also contend that your survey methods are flawed and provide results that fly in the face of simliar studies. Gathering car reliability data on an Internet Forum is akin to gathering stats on the Average Health of Americans in an Emergency room. You can take whatever snide jabs you want at me, but it doesn't change either of those facts.

The lack of participation in this thread goes also both ways, since I don't see anyone rushing to defend your pont of view either.

Your exact words, in your initial post: "Everyone on here should be as outraged as I am..."

You're not saying "this is my personal opinion." You're very much saying "this is my opinion, and everyone should have this same opinion." Actually, its more than an opinion, you're saying that everyone should be "outraged." At me. The goal was an online lynch mob. It just hasn't happened.

Unlike you, I haven't asked anyone, much less everyone, to join me in my position. All I ask is that people participate in the research. Part of my role is, unfortunately, to absorb the attacks of people such as yourself.

You need to read things more closely. First off, JD Power's survey covers the third year, not the entire first three years. Years 1 and 2 are not included. Second, these results are only for North America, not "the world."

But, most importantly, the third year for 2004s and the first few months of the 2008s ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

I'm not saying one is better or more important than another. I don't have "recommended" and "not recommended" lists. I don't make such value judgments at all. My stated goal, all along, has been to post the data, and let people use it to form their own judgments. If someone's conclusion is different than my own, I'm fine with that.

What are you saying is "an outright falsehood?" That according to CR every single Cadillac has a reliability score below the average? Sorry, but that's all too accurate.

You have proved absolutely nothing with regard to the 2008 CTS. That you somehow think that a single study of 2004 Cadillacs--which isn't supported by a second source you yourself cited earlier--"flat out" disproves my results for the 2008 CTS says a lot about your logic.

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by Southern

I do tend to side with Tony. I'm just confused as to why I have to defend a Cadillac CTS, that has been nearly flawless for me, in a Cadillac CTS forum.

I think some of the detractors may be winning in that I am thinking of withdrawing my site support and leaving.
In the vernacular, "I don't need this shit day in and day out".

I think we tangled enough in the results thread, and hope we can avoid a repeat.

I'd suggest distinguishing when people are reporting problems with their cars and when they're saying "the CTS sucks." The former is a statement of fact, the latter an emotionally-loaded opinion.

If you do this, I think you'll find that there have been very few posts of the latter sort. Even the great majority of people reporting problems with their cars still very much like the CTS, and are not seeking to attack the model (and certainly not your personal car) in any way. They're not "dectractors," at least not in so far as I understand the term. Similarly, I don't think there's a need to "defend" the car against these people. They're not attacking it.

In my opinion, the best forums are those where people with different views and experiences--yours most certainly included--can peacefully interact. If everyone had the same views on everything, this forum would be a much less interesting and helpful place.

The only attitude that doesn't work in such a forum is "my way or the highway."

[Cadillac Tony]

If you want to play "Quote-Fu" and try to pick apart my words, let's go:

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Your exact words, in your initial post: "Everyone on here should be as outraged as I am..."

Correct. In my opinion, people should be outraged that they've supported a freeloader who posts skewed information in press releases.

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Second, these results are only for North America, not "the world."

Oh, geez. By "the world", I was referring to both domestic and import brands. Your style of debate is ridiculous- you're debating how I word things, not the issues at hand.

Originally Posted by mkaresh

What are you saying is "an outright falsehood?" That according to CR every single Cadillac has a reliability score below the average? Sorry, but that's all too accurate.

No, I was referring to your claim that Consumer Reports was the only one who collected long term reliability data. According to JD Power, Cadillac is #3 out of all brands sold in the US.

Originally Posted by mkaresh

You have proved absolutely nothing with regard to the 2008 CTS. That you somehow think that a single study of 2004 Cadillacs--which isn't supported by a second source you yourself cited earlier--"flat out" disproves my results for the 2008 CTS says a lot about your logic.

Ah, I see. So JD Powers' 3 year reliability study proves nothing about Cadillac reliability, but your polling of random people on an Internet forum is scientific perfection and irrefutable?

[mkaresh]

I wasn't just picking apart words. With any study, it's very important to pay attention to exactly what is being measured.

"First three years" and "the third year" are not at all the same thing. This is not just a matter of wording.

Similarly, "2008 CTS reliability" and "Cadillac reliability" are NOT the same thing. For some reason, you think we're debating Cadillac reliability. I'm only debating 2008 CTS initial reliability.

I didn't say that JDPA's study "proves nothing." Putting it that way is taking my words totally out of context. I said that J.D. Power's study of 2004 Cadillacs in their third year proves nothing about the 2008 CTS in its first few months, which is all my results are about. But you seem to be incapable of grasping such "fine" distinctions.

A large part of the problem here is that you see everything as black and white and leap quickly from specific conclusions to global beliefs.

Ironically, your way of thinking deserves a lot of blame for Detroit's current condition. First, you can't deal with any evidence you don't like, so you'd rather bury it or ignore it. Second, forming broad conclusions based on specific, limited data is what leads people to think things like "domestics bad, imports good." They don't want to get into the details, so those domestic models that do actually score well fail to break through their beliefs. It's about as easy to change an unthinking, die-hard Toyota buyer's mind as it is to change yours.

You won't find scores by brand anywhere on my site. There's a reason for that. With at least as much variance from model to model as from brand to brand, the only reason to look at reliability by brand is if you're too intellectually lazy to look at the model level.

[Cadillac Tony]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Good luck on your business- make sure you share some of the profit with Sal for all the free help he's allowed you to get here.

[mkaresh]

Seems we can agree on one thing, after all.

As I've said before, currently there is no profit. And I'm not sure when there will be a profit. If there is eventually a profit, then I agree that it would make sense to compensate those forums that make it possible. We're simply not there yet.

Right now, all the costs of the reliability research come out of my pocket. And I don't ask people for donations, or even provide a way for them to donate. I'd rather they do the one thing I cannot do myself, and that's provide the data.