Viper on fire pics

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by Noir

what? you got something against rednecks? hey man, we are people too ya know.

besides, mighty mouse's a kick ass superhero. i'll see if i can come up with something you'd approve.

wow, sweet link though. not that i don't like awards, but from the chart, i see that there are 4 japanese manufacturers that fall below the industry standard. i see that majority of domestics fall below the average.

You should be in advertising. That is a great misleading statement. There are 7 non-european imports that fall below average, and there are 7 domestic makers that fall below average.

Note also, all 7 of the domestic makers that are below average are barely so (within 10 pp100 of the average 118), while the 7 non-euro imports range up to almost 30 pp100 below average.

[Noir]

it's also good to see that GMC + Buick + Cadillac's market share equals 6.6% of the industry.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

You should be in advertising. That is a great misleading statement. There are 7 non-european imports that fall below average, and there are 7 domestic makers that fall below average.

Note also, all 7 of the domestic makers that are below average are barely so (within 10 pp100 of the average 118), while the 7 non-euro imports range up to almost 30 pp100 below average.

hey below the bar is below the bar.....remember highschool? let's see 1 point below the minimum requirement of D = failing.

[Noir]

2005 to 2004 IQS

lexus 81 87
buick 100 100
cadillac 104 93 *
toyota 105 104
infiniti 109 104
honda 112 99 *
gmc 113 127 **
lincoln 113 121 **
acura 116 117
jeep 120 136**
mercury 120 100 *
nissan 120 154 **
chrysler 121 120
ford 127 130
mitsubishi 127 130
pontaic 129 122 *
dodge 129 121 *
saturn 136 149 **
subaru 138 123 *
mazda 149 157 **
suzuki 151 149

cadillac, honda, mercury, pontiac, dodge, and subaru seems to be dropping in their quality. cadillac and honda seems to be over the average, the rest are below.

however, gmc, lincoln, jeep, nissan, saturn, and mazda looks like they are making an effort to up teh quality. gmc and lincoln are over the average while the rest aren't.

other than honda and subaru sucking ballz, i don't see any other japanese imports dropping majorly in quality. gmc, lincoln, jeep, and saturn seems to be making an effort to get increase their quality but as of this year, only gmc and lincoln are above the average. and it looks like there are more domestic manufacturers sucking ballz than japanese. :cry:

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

I'm not talking about the 70's and 80's and early 90's. Imports WERE better cars back in the early 90's. I wouldn't dispute that. I'm Talking about NOW. The 21st century, where despite the lack of evidence to support the idea that imports are better than domestics, there is still this idea that "nothing's built like a Toyota". In fact there are 10 automakers that build cars BETTER than Toyota. The import companies built good cars to build a good reputation, and even now that their quality has fallen enough to meet or even drop below the quality of domestic vehicles, they still exploit that past image through creative advertising.

according to your evidence, there are 6 major ones...not 10.

and according to your evidence, most of the japanese imports haven't fallen enough to drop below the quality of domestic vehicles. most either meet or exceed domestics and are increasing quality....other than honda of course...where'd my damn old avatar go?

[Landshark]

take that JD Powers initial quality crap with a grain of salt. an initial quality issue could be a broken floor mat clip, a transmission that pukes its guts out, or a climate control panel that someone doesn't think is laid out ergonomically enough.

i've had 3 initial quality issues with the LGT - broken floor mat clip (replaced with re-designed part), a dash rattle (3 minute fix with a piece of foam), and an off-center steering wheel (dealer fix). so i would contribute three initial quality issues for my car alone. oh n0s!!1!!!11 is it teh junk? hardly.

here's some light reading for you:

J.D. Power's initial quality study doesn't tell the whole story

By John McCormick / Special to The Detroit News
John McCormick

Automakers have a love/hate relationship with J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Study depending on how their vehicles perform. But how relevant or meaningful is this study by the California-based research company to consumers?

The report is based on feedback from vehicle buyers after just three months of ownership. As consumers know, major quality problems often develop considerably later in a vehicle’s life.

What the study does reveal often has more to do with buyer satisfaction than with actual quality.

For example, the Hummer H2 scored at the bottom of the 2004 rankings. Why? A leading complaint was bad fuel consumption. Is that a reflection of poor quality or a puzzling absence of reason among buyers of a vehicle that clearly is going to be a gas guzzler?

The Power survey should not be taken at face value by consumers as a reliable guide to the quality of a model or an automaker. The devil is in the details. For instance, an automaker’s overall ranking could be adversely affected by the launch of a large number of new vehicles, which often experience early quality issues.

But that doesn’t mean that the automaker in question has lost its focus on quality. A case in point is Porsche AG. The German company’s 911 model took top place in the premium sports car category and its European factory won a gold award. Yet Porsche saw its overall initial quality ranking plunge 36 percent to third from last. The culprit: the new Cayenne sport utility vehicle, which was criticized for ergonomic problems.

A similar fate befell Nissan, which last year entered the large truck market with several new models for the first time. Conversely, brands that introduced few new models, notably Buick and Mercury, scored very well. The real test will come when these nameplates start to introduce new designs.

An examination of the study’s individual categories also reveals some inconsistencies, mainly due to segmentation that fails to reflect the extraordinarily fragmented nature of today’s market. Surely the Acura TSX and Ford Thunderbird are not really competitors for the Cadillac CTS in the entry luxury car category.

Some misgivings aside, the 2004 study spotlights some interesting trends. Japan’s quality control is vulnerable. Lexus, Toyota’s upscale offshoot and a benchmark of dependability, slipped 14 percent in the nameplate rankings. The Koreans and Detroit’s automakers continue to gain. Hyundai did spectacularly well and Cadillac ranked second behind Lexus.

The good news for consumers: virtually all automakers are doing a better job with quality. Certain Japanese brands still lead the field, but the numbers also indicate that choosing a product from GM, Ford or Chrysler is a smarter decision than it has been for years.

John McCormick is a columnist for Auto Consumer

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Noir

besides, mighty mouse's a kick ass superhero. i'll see if i can come up with something you'd approve.

teh GM Avenger?

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Landshark

take that JD Powers initial quality crap with a grain of salt. [/i]

unpossible daffy duck! unpossible.

[Red SVX 92]

Too lazy to comment further, so I'll just quote to show that Shadow may have a point:

Originally Posted by Landshark

...J.D. Power's initial quality study doesn't tell the whole story

By John McCormick / Special to The Detroit News
John McCormick

Automakers have a love/hate relationship with J.D. Power’s Initial Quality Study depending on how their vehicles perform. But how relevant or meaningful is this study by the California-based research company to consumers?

The report is based on feedback from vehicle buyers after just three months of ownership. As consumers know, major quality problems often develop considerably later in a vehicle’s life.

What the study does reveal often has more to do with buyer satisfaction than with actual quality.

For example, the Hummer H2 scored at the bottom of the 2004 rankings. Why? A leading complaint was bad fuel consumption. Is that a reflection of poor quality or a puzzling absence of reason among buyers of a vehicle that clearly is going to be a gas guzzler?

The Power survey should not be taken at face value by consumers as a reliable guide to the quality of a model or an automaker. The devil is in the details. For instance, an automaker’s overall ranking could be adversely affected by the launch of a large number of new vehicles, which often experience early quality issues.

But that doesn’t mean that the automaker in question has lost its focus on quality. A case in point is Porsche AG. The German company’s 911 model took top place in the premium sports car category and its European factory won a gold award. Yet Porsche saw its overall initial quality ranking plunge 36 percent to third from last. The culprit: the new Cayenne sport utility vehicle, which was criticized for ergonomic problems.

A similar fate befell Nissan, which last year entered the large truck market with several new models for the first time. Conversely, brands that introduced few new models, notably Buick and Mercury, scored very well. The real test will come when these nameplates start to introduce new designs.

An examination of the study’s individual categories also reveals some inconsistencies, mainly due to segmentation that fails to reflect the extraordinarily fragmented nature of today’s market. Surely the Acura TSX and Ford Thunderbird are not really competitors for the Cadillac CTS in the entry luxury car category.

Some misgivings aside, the 2004 study spotlights some interesting trends. Japan’s quality control is vulnerable. Lexus, Toyota’s upscale offshoot and a benchmark of dependability, slipped 14 percent in the nameplate rankings. The Koreans and Detroit’s automakers continue to gain. Hyundai did spectacularly well and Cadillac ranked second behind Lexus.

The good news for consumers: virtually all automakers are doing a better job with quality. Certain Japanese brands still lead the field, but the numbers also indicate that choosing a product from GM, Ford or Chrysler is a smarter decision than it has been for years.

John McCormick is a columnist for Auto Consumer

[Shadow248]

Thank you Alan for proving my point for me. I love when you do that, cause you do it well. Your un-informative article said exactly what i've been saying this whole time...

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Nuff said. Anyone who wishes to argue, please do some research first. Imports are not what they used to be and Domestics have come a long long way.

Furthermore, the article is based on what I had already said about JD Power and other evaluation organizations. There is no un-biased, reliable, and fair reliability rating system. JD Power simply has the closest thing to that. They lack the initial bias of companies like Consumer Reports, and the car mags, and have a good standardized system that gives the reader an idea of what a company is like. Sure it won't tell the whole story, but you know to stay away from the companies at the very bottom of the list, while the ones in the top 5 are likely fairly safe bets. It's the only thing we have to use as real "evidence" when it comes to this sort of argument. Otherwise, we'd just be trading "my uncle had a..." stories all day long.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Thank you Alan for proving my point for me. I love when you do that, cause you do it well. Your un-informative article said exactly what i've been saying this whole time...

the only thing it shows (not proves) is that domestics don't seem to fall apart as much in the first three months like they used to. keep fishing.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Landshark

the only thing it shows (not proves) is that domestics don't seem to fall apart as much in the first three months like they used to. keep fishing.

YEEEEHAWWW!!!!!!

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by Landshark

the only thing it shows (not proves) is that domestics don't seem to fall apart as much in the first three months like they used to. keep fishing.

You didn't read your own article?!

Originally Posted by Noir

YEEEEHAWWW!!!!!!

At least you can post stereotypical comments and random comical photos. I suppose this means you're not totally useless.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

At least you can post stereotypical comments and random comical photos. I suppose this means you're not totally useless.

no actually i'm totally useless. i live in a barn and i eat hay.

btw-where's teh proof that japanese imports are on the major decline in quality? SHOW ME TEH MONEY!!!!

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Noir

no actually i'm totally useless. i live in a barn and i eat hay.

agreed.

btw-where's teh proof that japanese imports are on the major decline in quality? SHOW ME TEH MONEY!!!!

JD Powers Initial Quality Survey said so, stupid! might as well liquidate their assets while they're still worth something. i'll buy FHI for a dollar.