|
I read Dayle's post and was under the impression he wanted a minivan for space, hauling capacity, but was going to 'mod' it for performance, and immeadiatly recalled CHEAP minivans that haul ass. Nowhere did I hear him mention that 'luxury' and 'interior quality' were a primary concern. And considering he owns another weird turbocharged car from the 80s, I thought he might be interested.
As for your definition of quality, it leaves a lot open to interpretation. A distinguishing characterstic? How about a decently built vehicle at a fair price? That would seem to fit your definition(s). As for JD power associates.. they count 'problems'... where do they get this information? Do they personally drive the vehicles, or do they take data from the dealerships? Perhaps the reason Audi is considered 'sub par' is not beause their cars are sub-par, but their owners are extremely picky and finicky. Who knows? All I know is that I've owned a chrysler product, and it gave me a couple problems. The headgasket blew due to a faulty design (which was fixed in 1998, but CR still reported them as unreliable for an additional 5 years for some unknown reason), and the door popper made some noise. What's weird is that people who drive European cars, I see quite a few of them taking their cars into the shops, but they never mention it's a 'lack' of quality or dependability, it's just because the Euro vehicle is so 'precise' that eveyrthing hast to be perfect.... however, if it was the same problem on a domestic, owners would be more likely to call it a 'fault'. Do you consider the SVX a 'quality' vehicle? My neon had fewer problems than most SVXs, so maybe the neon is of higher quality, purely because the SVX has more 'problems'? Not so. The SVX is of EXTREMELY high quality. Something can be high quality, and have problems. Something can be of low quality (neon) and not have problems.
As for my 'false statements'... instead I'd like YOU to provide some data, because I don't see how they're false.. The 2.4 liter engine in minivans... is a reliable engine. So's the V6. I've never heard otherwise. Transmissions don't last.... but the engines seem fine. It's quite common to find older minivans with over 200k, which I deem pretty good. So prove that Chrysler engines suck. Please. Also, I stated that it's pretty ignorant to say a whole 'marque' sucks when a few of their models have problems. I equated it to saying "subaru sucks becuase the SVX eats wheel bearings, warps rotors, and destroys 4heats!", which was obviously tongue in cheek, since I love my SVX. How is that false? I don't see it. Someone makes a blanket statement, and I point out that making a statement like that seems a bit hypocritical when they're driving and in love with a car that has it's share of 'issues'. So please, prove that statement false, I'd like to see that.
We can keep going if you'd like.
- Rob
|