The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > Not Exactly SVX

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-18-2004, 06:45 PM
NapaBavarian's Avatar
NapaBavarian NapaBavarian is offline
Good morning!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Napa California
Posts: 4,445
Send a message via AIM to NapaBavarian Send a message via Yahoo to NapaBavarian
I'm fairly pickey about my cars... OK, extremly pickey and there are only 2 mini vans I would own, a VW Vanagon (not for the faint of heart, vanagon flat 4 water boxer = SVX 4EAT in early death, and the toyota you're getting
__________________
.Karl.
Southwest members, click here to check in!CA,NV,AZ,UT,NM,OR,CO
Wanted...your busted SVX! Watch out Earl, I'm comin to getchya
Return of the Pissed Platypus! X2
My dream (other than a pearlie)
1.8 SVXi and a laguna blue spoiler...somewhere
I decided to quit drinking, but I didn't like it so I quit not drinking.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:19 PM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cant beat a toyota

Quote:
Originally posted by Motorsport-SVX


Maybe you should Re read my sentence:

when it comes to late model motors (or cars for that matter...)

late models meaning mid 80s and 90s.....duh !!
the old Slant 6 is a great motor....rest assure.
I never said otherwise. Maybe you're still not understanding me. I don't know anything about the previa, so I'm not going to say anything about it's reliability. That's all I said. And when another member brought up the slant six (which is an extremely durable engine), I was just saying it'd be interesting to see the slant six take on newer engines, and see what the results were.... it had nothing to do with me not believing you or anything. I just think it'd be cool.

- Rob
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:20 PM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
Re: heres some good info

Quote:
Originally posted by Motorsport-SVX
for those doubters and heres some good reading

http://www.jdpa.com/pdf/2003050.pdf

its just good info
FYI: Quality isn't the same thing as reliability. VWs have great quality....but are not as reliable as cars of lesser quality. Dig?

- Rob
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-18-2004, 10:17 PM
NapaBavarian's Avatar
NapaBavarian NapaBavarian is offline
Good morning!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Napa California
Posts: 4,445
Send a message via AIM to NapaBavarian Send a message via Yahoo to NapaBavarian
Re: Re: heres some good info

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane


FYI: Quality isn't the same thing as reliability. VWs have great quality....but are not as reliable as cars of lesser quality. Dig?

- Rob
I test drove a few VWs 5 years ago, all used... There were some quallity points about them, and some things that made me say WTF? I actually have a 1990 GTI, not bad overall quallity, but good for an inexpensive car.
__________________
.Karl.
Southwest members, click here to check in!CA,NV,AZ,UT,NM,OR,CO
Wanted...your busted SVX! Watch out Earl, I'm comin to getchya
Return of the Pissed Platypus! X2
My dream (other than a pearlie)
1.8 SVXi and a laguna blue spoiler...somewhere
I decided to quit drinking, but I didn't like it so I quit not drinking.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-18-2004, 11:52 PM
Noir's Avatar
Noir Noir is offline
Ever Vigilant He Never Sleeps.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mullet Country
Posts: 5,021
Ok let me get this straight.

Dayle wants to buy a Toyota Previa and make a little fun project out of it.

Rob thinks that that's 'weak' and the Chrysler turbo Minivan is the way to go.

Dayle points out that there are reasons that he wants to purchase and build up a Previa. One of those reasons is reliability. Dayle feels that Toyota's are more reliable than Chrysler's.

Rob states that he has no knowledge of the Previa, but feels that Chrysler is a reliable car.

Dayle suggests that Rob contact a Toyota service department to confirm the reliability of the Previa. He still stands by his statement that Chrysler's are not as reliable.

Rob admits he has no knowledge of Previa's so he can't comment on their reliability. However, Rob thinks that you can not rate the reliability of a manufacturer's products by 'when a few things fail on certain models'. Rob then uses Subaru in another example.

Dayle then furnishes a fairly reputable source of information to backup his claim that Toyota's vehicles are higher in quality and reliability than Chrysler's vehicles as a whole. Subaru's also fall above the industry standard. Chrysler falls below industry standard.

Rob then argues that Quality is not the same as Reliability.

I read over Dayle's link and saw that the report was based on QUALITY and DEPENDABILITY.

Knowing that Rob fully read the article and fully understands the English language along with the his skilled talents in deciphering pretty colored charts, for some reason, he continues to make false statements.

I agree with Rob that Quality is not the same as Reliability, but isn't Dependability the same as Reliability?

To be sure, I consulted a dictionary. Here's what I found:

re·li·a·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-bl)
adj.
Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car.
Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials.

To be sure that the dictionary was not hogwash, I also checked out Dependability:

de·pend·a·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-pnd-bl)
adj.
Trustworthy. See Synonyms at reliable.

Now after examining the pretty colored bars on the charts, I noticed that there were quite a bit of problems with Chrysler's. The difference in numbers between Toyota's and Chrysler's are so great that it proves that Dayle's right in regards to reliability. That report also shows that there are more than just a 'FEW THINGS FAIL ON CERTAIN MODELS' that Rob mentioned.

FYI Rob- Feel free to correct me where I am wrong. DIG?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:56 AM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
Quote:
Originally posted by Noir
Ok let me get this straight.

Dayle wants to buy a Toyota Previa and make a little fun project out of it.

Rob thinks that that's 'weak' and the Chrysler turbo Minivan is the way to go.
No. Rob thinks Dayle was buying a minivan for performance, and knows that turbo chrysler minivans are the way to go. Fast, cheap, and can easily be modded to run sub 13 second 1/4 miles.

Quote:
Dayle points out that there are reasons that he wants to purchase and build up a Previa. One of those reasons is reliability. Dayle feels that Toyota's are more reliable than Chrysler's.
He also says "Quality" and "chrysler" shouldn't be used in the same sentence, using quality interchangeably with reliability.

Quote:
Rob states that he has no knowledge of the Previa, but feels that Chrysler is a reliable car.
I feel that Chrysler, like all auto marques, hits some things and misses others. It annoys me when people make huge generalizations about things, and have double standards. Subaru obviously 'missed' quite a few things when they were designing the SVX, but I'm not going to say "Subaru and quality shouldn't be used in the same sentence"..... I realize the SVX has its high points, and its low points.

Quote:
Dayle suggests that Rob contact a Toyota service department to confirm the reliability of the Previa. He still stands by his statement that Chrysler's are not as reliable.

Rob admits he has no knowledge of Previa's so he can't comment on their reliability. However, Rob thinks that you can not rate the reliability of a manufacturer's products by 'when a few things fail on certain models'. Rob then uses Subaru in another example.

Dayle then furnishes a fairly reputable source of information to backup his claim that Toyota's vehicles are higher in quality and reliability than Chrysler's vehicles as a whole. Subaru's also fall above the industry standard. Chrysler falls below industry standard.

Rob then argues that Quality is not the same as Reliability.

I read over Dayle's link and saw that the report was based on QUALITY and DEPENDABILITY.

Knowing that Rob fully read the article and fully understands the English language along with the his skilled talents in deciphering pretty colored charts, for some reason, he continues to make false statements.
False statements??? Chrysler has issues with automatic transmissions. Another thing they have a problem with, is if a car is a NEW model, they tend to have some electrical problems. That's a fact. However, there engines have always been pretty good, and I don't see anything that makes them less reliable than other marques. I know people who have 200k on neons. Minivans? It's easy to find them with over 200k on the clock.

- Rob

Last edited by Chicane; 02-19-2004 at 05:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-19-2004, 06:58 AM
wawazat??'s Avatar
wawazat?? wawazat?? is offline
Yeah, I'm still around
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beverly Hills, MI
Posts: 3,770
Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane

It annoys me when people make huge generalizations about things


- Rob
Like MAC users in general being smarter than PC users

Todd
__________________
Down to none
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-19-2004, 07:38 AM
SVX26517
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The slant 6 was used up till 87 in US and Canadian Chrysler's. I believe they were used in boats up till the 90's. If the Slant 6 was converted to fuel injection at that time, it would most likely still be around today.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:39 AM
Noir's Avatar
Noir Noir is offline
Ever Vigilant He Never Sleeps.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mullet Country
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane/Robby
No. Rob thinks Dayle was buying a minivan for performance, and knows that turbo chrysler minivans are the way to go. Fast, cheap, and can easily be modded to run sub 13 second 1/4 miles.
Robby that's where your problem is. You always assume that everyone wants what you want or what you feel is ideal. From reading Dayle's first post, I didn't see him mention that he wants to 'run sub 13 second 1/4 miles.' All I read is that he wanted a fast little van that looks nice with a little beefier suspension to cart his dogs around in and pickup stuff from Home Depot.

Instead of recommending another option for Dayle's consideration like:

Dayle you may want to look at the turbo Minivan from Chrysler. It may provide you with some of the options you are looking for.

You immediately went the:

Weak dude. If you wanted a fast minivan, you should have gone chrysler.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane/Robby
He also says "Quality" and "chrysler" shouldn't be used in the same sentence, using quality interchangeably with reliability.
Before we touch this issue, Robby, let's look at what 'Quality' means.

qual·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwl-t)
n. pl. qual·i·ties

a. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property.
b. Superiority of kind: an intellect of unquestioned quality.
c. Degree or grade of excellence: yard goods of low quality.

(**Disclaimer-The meanings not pertaining to this discussion were removed)

I think we can all agree that a good/high quality product is one with few defects. Products with many problems and defects are considered bad/low quality. Correct me if I'm wrong Robby. Dig? Now, like Dayle said, if you visited a Toyota Service Department, you would be able to inquire about the common problems associated with the Previa. If a vehicle keeps coming in with problems and failures is that not an issue with 'Quality'?

Now assuming that Dayle's posted link was accurate, we can say that anything that falls below 'industry standard' is of 'low quality' or 'poor quality'. Chrysler falls below that standard. Toyota is above that standard. (Please see the numbers and the pretty colors on the charts for support.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane/Robby
I feel that Chrysler, like all auto marques, hits some things and misses others. It annoys me when people make huge generalizations about things, and have double standards. Subaru obviously 'missed' quite a few things when they were designing the SVX, but I'm not going to say "Subaru and quality shouldn't be used in the same sentence"..... I realize the SVX has its high points, and its low points.


If you look at the numbers and pretty colors closely, you will find that you are absolutely correct. Subaru's 'misses' does show up in the quality and dependability chart. Notice that Subaru is ranked lower than some, but higher than others. Nonetheless, they are still above 'Industry Standard' if not by much. This has nothing to do with a double standard.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane/Robby
False statements???
Robby, the statements that you made that were false are as follows:

I've never heard the minivan engines in chryslers called unreliable

And yeah, bash Chrysler, it makes sense to call a whole company unreliable when a few things fail on certain models.

I mean subaru?! Subaru's are horribly unreliable POSs... they built this one car with a transmission that always failed, the brakes were too small, and the rear wheel bearings go out like crazy!

Subaru sucks!

and your response to Dayle's post where QUALITY and RELIABILITY were both mentioned in the report.

FYI: Quality isn't the same thing as reliability. DIG?

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane/Robby
Chrysler has issues with automatic transmissions. Another thing they have a problem with, is if a car is a NEW model, they tend to have some electrical problems. That's a fact. However, there engines have always been pretty good, and I don't see anything that makes them less reliable than other marques. I know people who have 200k on neons. Minivans? It's easy to find them with over 200k on the clock.
All of that you mentioned is reflected in the JD Power's report. They take all that in consideration and publish their findings yearly. Robby there are alot more to a vehicle than the engine. What good an engine is without the drivetrain, brakes to stop the vehicle, heating for the winter, a/c for the summer, tires for the pavement, etc.

Now Robby, you mentioned that 'there' engines have always been pretty good. Please furnish DATA to support your claim. I don't mean an isolated example like your Dodge neon or your Mommy's Minivan. Show me a report from a reputable source on the engines lifespan of a Chrysler vehicle with the number of problems for that duration and I'll see if I agree with you on the 'good engine' part. DIG?

I'm still Digging.

Last edited by Noir; 02-19-2004 at 10:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:43 AM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
Quote:
Originally posted by wawazat??


Like MAC users in general being smarter than PC users

Todd
Ha! Nice one. I owe you a beer. Anyway, my point is that there's a difference between calling 'ALL' chrysler products unreliable, vs saying 'they have issues', just like Subaru, GM, Saab, VW, etc does. No car manufacturer is perfect. Toyota, while good in quality and dependability, lacks any 'design' that blows my skirt up. The supra was good looking...but... other than that...meh. I guess the celica is alright, but remember they were having problems with the transmissions in the GTS? No car marque is perfect, and when people make blanket statements like "all chryslers are unreliable', it just pisses me off because it's perpetuating a false statement.

In defense of my Mac VS PC generalization, my quote was 'the average mac user is more intelligent than the average PC user', which DOES NOT say that all Mac users are smart, NOR does it say that all PC users are stupid. THere's room in my statement for extremely ingelligent PC users, and extremely stupid mac users. However, it's quite apparent that all of the PC users on this forum fail to understand that statement.... which... could be used to just further my point- but I KNOW almost everyone here is extremely intelligent.... so... whatever. I hope someday people will comprehend it.

Back on topic: A supercharged minivan sounds fun.

- Rob
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:55 AM
Noir's Avatar
Noir Noir is offline
Ever Vigilant He Never Sleeps.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mullet Country
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane
Anyway, my point is that there's a difference between calling 'ALL' chrysler products unreliable, vs saying 'they have issues', just like Subaru, GM, Saab, VW, etc does. No car manufacturer is perfect.
That report was taken from all cars produced by each manufacturer as a whole based in the United States. They actually do studies for each country because they know that the quality and reliability can be different based on LOCATION as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane
Toyota, while good in quality and dependability, lacks any 'design' that blows my skirt up. The supra was good looking...but... other than that...meh. I guess the celica is alright, but remember they were having problems with the transmissions in the GTS?
No one is talking about 'design' which in this case is used for the appearance of the car, not the engineering of the car.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane
No car marque is perfect, and when people make blanket statements like "all chryslers are unreliable', it just pisses me off because it's perpetuating a false statement.
No one said any 'marque' is perfect. You can not critize others for making blanket statements, using double standards, and perpetuating false statements when you also do the same.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane
In defense of my Mac VS PC generalization, my quote was 'the average mac user is more intelligent than the average PC user', which DOES NOT say that all Mac users are smart, NOR does it say that all PC users are stupid. THere's room in my statement for extremely ingelligent PC users, and extremely stupid mac users. However, it's quite apparent that all of the PC users on this forum fail to understand that statement.... which... could be used to just further my point- but I KNOW almost everyone here is extremely intelligent.... so... whatever. I hope someday people will comprehend it.
My pm box is still waiting for your response for the above topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane
Back on topic: A supercharged minivan sounds fun.
Carry on.

I dig, do you?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-19-2004, 11:08 AM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
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
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-19-2004, 11:11 AM
Chicane Chicane is offline
Anti-BS Vigilante
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,057
Send a message via ICQ to Chicane Send a message via AIM to Chicane
Quote:
Originally posted by Noir

design isn't a sign of quality
I'm running out of lunch time, but I disagree. Design is a HUGE factor to me, the QUALITY of hte design. The SVX has a great design, a high quality, extremely polished pure-bred design.

The new GM monte carlo, on the other hand, has a HORRIBLE design. It as an INFERIOR design. Things don't line up, the back end doesn't jive with the fron end; it's DESIGN is of low quality.

- Rob
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:05 PM
Noir's Avatar
Noir Noir is offline
Ever Vigilant He Never Sleeps.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mullet Country
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane

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).
I am rating a vehicle based on quality and reliability, not based on price. Let's not add too much to the soup.

Quote:
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?
JD Power gets data from many sources. Also look at what they are saying about European vehicles vs. Domestic for the country of United States.

Quote:
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.
Well there you go. IT GAVE YOU A COUPLE PROBLEMS. Think if it gave majority of the buyers a couple problems, I guess that would warrant a poor quality product. Unfortunately, the problems listed by JDPA probably is each 'different' problem which would mean there is more than a 'few'.

Quote:
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'.
I have seen many reports where European cars with problems and concerns for long term reliability. Maybe you should read more. If you read that last JDPA report it states that Domestics are looking better than Europeans in the long run.

Quote:
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.
I think the SVX is a good quality car. I have not had any problems with either of the two I've owned. I have the car inspected whenever I take it into my mechanic and if anything looks like it needs to be changed before problems arise, I change it. It's called preventive maintenance. Is it cost effective? No, but are we talking about price here? Nope.

What you mentioned above is a matter of your own opinion. I stated before that quality of a vehicle is depends on the number of problems and failures experienced from engineering or production. A neon could be a high quality product if that particular car has few problems. Do not confuse luxury with quality. Please explain how 'high quality can have many problems'.

Quote:
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.
Well Robby, I did a search and I did find common issues with the Chrysler's engines. Chronic issues as many put it. I recommend you do the same. I also checked JDPA's site to see if they rate individual models. They do. Chrysler's Voyager (I just picked one) did not look very good. Remember that the engine is only one part of the equation. There are mechanical issues. One source cited for the Voyager (i used this as one model from your loved Chrysler Corp):

Transmission problems
Motor mounts problems
Distributor issues
Stalling problems
Lose valve guides
Breaks drive belts
Wear out tensioners
Failing inner CV joints

Oh, just because a car can tick up to 200k miles does not mean there was no maintenance done to prolong the life of the engine, nor does it prove that the engine was not replaced, nor does it mean that major mechanical work was done to the engine multiple times.

Prove me wrong Robby.

Quote:
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.
I understand your point. I'm just stating that your comparison between Chrysler and Subaru is incorrect. You are right, the SVX has some issues. Unfortunately, Chryslers has more issues than the SVX. I'm not saying that Chrysler sucks. I'm saying that Chrysler has lower quality products. You could compare Chrysler with another Marque that has similiar number of problems but you can not compare two that has a difference of 50%. There is a big difference between $20k and $30k right?

Quote:
We can keep going if you'd like.
I thought we were having a civil discussion. Dig?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-19-2004, 12:14 PM
Noir's Avatar
Noir Noir is offline
Ever Vigilant He Never Sleeps.
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mullet Country
Posts: 5,021
Quote:
Originally posted by Chicane


I'm running out of lunch time, but I disagree. Design is a HUGE factor to me, the QUALITY of hte design. The SVX has a great design, a high quality, extremely polished pure-bred design.

The new GM monte carlo, on the other hand, has a HORRIBLE design. It as an INFERIOR design. Things don't line up, the back end doesn't jive with the fron end; it's DESIGN is of low quality.

- Rob
That's the thing Robbie. The design is huge to YOU. I'm not adding opinions to the brew. The quality of design is based on opinion, not fact. What you like does not mean someone else will like it. Vanilla tastes good to some but not to others. Because of that, using opinionated statements really doesn't prove anything other than express your taste.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122