SVX Network Forums Live Chat! SVX or Subaru Links Old Lockers Photo Post How-To Documents Message Archive SVX Shop Search |
IRC users: |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: cant beat a toyota
Quote:
- Rob |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: heres some good info
Quote:
- Rob |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Re: heres some good info
Quote:
__________________
.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. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
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? |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
- Rob Last edited by Chicane; 02-19-2004 at 05:58 AM. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Todd
__________________
Down to none |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#39
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#41
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dig, do you? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#44
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|