2017 Fiat 124 - The best MX-5 (? or !)

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

ORLY?
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/20/f...quality-award/

Times are a changin'.

No they're not. The BS "quality award" companies that help sell cars...those are definitely "a changin".

Look at this laughable garbage:
http://www.strategicvision.com/about_ratings.php

It's another BS award to sell cars. If you think the new Durango, Fiat 500 and Mini cooper are stalwarts of reliability, I have a bridge to sell you.


edit: and to be fair, the GF and I are waiting to see about the reliability in the new Mazdas for another year before considering one.

[Entroper]

Wow. As a former MINI owner, any award for reliability given to a MINI is highly suspect.

The BP and MZR were fairly bulletproof engines. I expect Skyactiv to be the same. It's got a lot of new tech, but it's pretty clear they did their homework if you read up on it.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

No they're not. The BS "quality award" companies that help sell cars...those are definitely "a changin".

Look at this laughable garbage:
http://www.strategicvision.com/about_ratings.php

It's another BS award to sell cars. If you think the new Durango, Fiat 500 and Mini cooper are stalwarts of reliability, I have a bridge to sell you.

Dude, that's pretty aggro. Take it easy. That award is far from laughable. Strategic vision IMO is a more balanced metric than let's say JD Power because SV attempts to weigh defects vs. customer satisfaction instead of reporting on defect counts which makes both big and small defects equivalent. (Example JD Power rates a dash rattle equally to a thrown rod). Strategic vision says, "ok, you had a defect what was it and then how would you rate that defect in terms of your vehicle satisfaction?". IMO this is a more nuanced approach. It goes beyond how people feel about the reputation a brand (like Chrysler) or a certain model year (like year 1 and year 2 Mini Coopers). To instead reflect the current state of the car from the owner's viewpoint (not the automakers').

Importantly, SV's satisfaction data is sourced from surveys of vehicle owners (not automakers). This is done specifically to control automakers influence in the data.

It's easy to cherry pick the most shocking winners, but if you go down the list of category winners there are many non-surprising makes/models showing up as well.

Other segment winners:
• Small car: Mazda Mazda3
• Midsize car: Subaru WRX
• Midsize alternative-powered car: Honda Accord Hybrid sedan
• Near-luxury car: Mercedes CLA
• Near-luxury alternative-powered car: BMW i3
• Luxury car: Mercedes S class
• Luxury multifunctional car: BMW 3-series wagon
• Premium coupe: Hyundai Genesis
• Standard convertible: Mini Cooper Roadster
• Premium convertible roadster: Chevrolet Corvette convertible
• Full-size pickup: Nissan Titan
• Entry CUV: Buick Encore and Volkswagen Tiguan
• Midsize CUV: Nissan Murano
• Full-size utility vehicle: GMC Yukon XL
• Near-luxury utility vehicle: BMW X4
• Luxury SUV: Cadillac Escalade
• Luxury CUV: BMW X5
• Minivan: Honda Odyssey
• Top overall model: Mini Cooper Roadster

http://www.autonews.com/article/2015...quality-survey

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Dude, that's pretty aggro. Take it easy.

When I type, I have to realize that how it sounds when spoken by the voice in my head is not the same way the voice in other's heads will hear it.

Fair enough,

But the ranking, the reviews... really are suspect. They just are, especially from outfits like SV who's "clients" are the auto industry. SV isn't a "quality" survey either, it's an "emotional appeal" survey with questions heavily focused on how a new-car owner "feels" about this or that. It's not measuring if the radio actually works or how many service complaints the dealerships receive.

Auto Journalism in general, in the US, is crap (some say it's dead entirely) because it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you and they all have sponsors/advertisers/clients to keep happy. Very little is unbiased because it's large part a promotional machine of the auto industry.


Even the clickbait artists over at TTAC came to the same conclusion:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...-index-a-joke/

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

When I type, I have to realize that how it sounds when spoken by the voice in my head is not the same way the voice in other's heads will hear it.

Fair enough,

But the ranking, the reviews... really are suspect. They just are, especially from outfits like SV who's "clients" are the auto industry. SV isn't a "quality" survey either, it's an "emotional appeal" survey with questions heavily focused on how a new-car owner "feels" about this or that. It's not measuring if the radio actually works or how many service complaints the dealerships receive.

Auto Journalism in general, in the US, is crap (some say it's dead entirely) because it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you and they all have sponsors/advertisers/clients to keep happy. Very little is unbiased because it's large part a promotional machine of the auto industry.


Even the clickbait artists over at TTAC came to the same conclusion:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...-index-a-joke/

Sa'll good. Generally I love your posts. Very insightful. In this case, I think SVs results have merit. I definitely wouldn't characterize the survey as "emotional appeal" that sounds like "Do you like your car?". Instead maybe the question is "how satisfactory has the ownership experience been for you in the last "x" months?" This does take into account quality as expected vs. received quality is a big part of the ownership satisfaction experience. Remember, this is the first time Fiat has ranked nearly this high in this survey. FCA has made a major push over the last 5 years to not only re-launch their brands, but also to modernize all of their processes. It's not surprising that the results could/would show a net positive result.

OTOH, TTAC's conclusion reflects little merit because they never state how they came to it. Reading the discussion underneath the article you linked is actually pretty insightful. Many agree. What specifically is TTAC's issue besides feeling like there is no merit in the results.

I'll repost the first post and another because they articulate my feelings about both the above pretty well.


First Post by "Gamper" in re: to the article
I guess I missed TTAC’s articles on previous year’s TQI results compiled by Strategic Vision. So why exactly are the results a joke? I see the statement but dont really see much to back it up. Not saying you are right or wrong, but care to elaborate or are you just unhappy with the results? It is notable that you are particularly unhappy with the Mercury Sable result yet you dont even have a review of the Mercury Sable on TTAC’s entire site. How would you know?

For instance, more detail on the conflicts would be nice, an analysis of the methodology used to determine winners would also be nice.



Post by "RobertSD" in RE: Ford showing strongly one year in a "Consumer Reports" quality report

Correction, Consumer Reports likes Ford now. So… what study is relevant then? Counts of exact TGWs? Some of the most loved automobiles would fail that test (VW and Mini come to mind). Is CR fine because it doesn’t accept paid adverts (even TTAC has had Toyota banners flashing everywhere recently)? Or is it unbelievable too because they would dare claim that Ford’s quality is right there with Toyota now?

When did these studies (SV, JDPower, etc) start becoming useless? Was it when Ford finally achieved similar rankings to Toyota and Honda? Was it when Hyundai owners rated their cars the best last year in Strategic Vision’s survey? Ownership experience is expectation going in and execution coming out. The expectations for, say, Toyota and Honda are just extremely high. A single mechanical or trim defect could damage the experience because of expectations in that case. Then, you have transaction price. Hyundai and Ford owners get steals compared to Toyota and Honda owners in many cases. Price has an effect, too. The Yaris is probably the worst car made by Toyota and doesn’t even stack up to others in its class, but it’s cheap and fuel-efficient, and that’s EXACTLY why its owners bought one.

All automakers pay for these results. That doesn’t invalidate the data. If SV didn’t have real data asked from good questions, auto companies wouldn’t pay them for that data and their services. It isn’t worth the marketing dollars in even the medium run.
I would like real context and analysis before you dismiss something out of hand.


IMO there is much more to this than "I don't trust this, so it has no value". FCA is neither the Fiat nor the Chrysler of 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. Any Fiat owner can attest to that. Changes are being made. Fix It Again Tony is long gone man.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

OTOH, TTAC's conclusion reflects little merit because they never state how they came to it.

That's the point isn't it. The author was making the point that the lack of merit with SV is self evident when viewing their website because there isn't any "data to go on". Their entire model is based around phoney, 1st year marketing lingo.. it's literally all fluff that would be easily laughed at by any undergrad majoring in marketing. SV is so blatant that if I had a professor use this as an example I would ask if it's a parody.

Seoltrain from the comments said it best:

Robert, I want my brain cells back after reading through SV’s “Method.”
And what a business model: make a vague quality assessment that sounds official, but where you can fudge the numbers, then get automakers to pay you to recommend their cars.

The Motley Fools sorts it out far more diplomatically than I do:
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...n-quality.aspx

Fiat 500 and 500e, Dodge Charger, Dodge Challenger, Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, and Dodge Durango were all winners of their respective segments. What do all of those vehicles have in common? It's probably not "quality" as it's normally understood ... It's this: People love them.

The quirky 500, Dodge's big muscle cars, and the iconic Jeep Wranglers all sell (in part, at least) on strong emotional appeals.

I'd argue that the problem-counting kind of quality still counts for a lot. In that arena, Fiat Chrysler still has work to do. The company's resources are spread very thin at the moment, as it rushes to complete a slew of new global products. In some places, that thinness is starting to show.
But surveys like Strategic Vision's help us understand why, for instance, FCA's U.S. sales were up 16% last year despite dismal-looking showings in more conventional quality assessments.

That last one is a nice way of saying that SVs survey shows not the quality of the car, but the quality of the marketing.

[rice_classic]

The 2nd post from the Fiat 500 owners forum perfectly explains SVs results:
http://www.fiat500owners.com/forum/5...iable-car.html

No

It's not reliable or well built (particularly the interior) but God is it good fun!

Totally worth all the issues I've had

Edit: However, just like folks on this forum.. plenty of 'enthusiasts' will chime in about how their car had no problems.

Final point.. In October of 2014 (9 months ago) Sergio Marchionne agree with CR's reliability study:
http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...onne/18176163/

So if the president of FCA is agreeing with CR and JDP, then one cannot logically conclude that FCA vehicles being manufactured at the time of that statement, magically became bastions of quality. They couldn't have and by Marchionne's own admission of quality issues with FCA in October of 2014, the results of the SV survey on vehicle "quality" should, at the very least, be taken with a grain of salt.

Edit 2: Thanks DAEMANO. If nothing else, it's been fun researching all this.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

That's the point isn't it. The author was making the point that the lack of merit with SV is self evident when viewing their website because there isn't any "data to go on". Their entire model is based around phoney, 1st year marketing lingo..

You see, the problem here, is that this is patently false. The dataset used was 46,000 customer satisfaction surveys over the last year. That was also posted on TTAC btw For sure SV's reporting of that data included fluffy lingo, but it still doesn't discredit the data. The TTAC blog post you linked wasn't attempting to make this point by some sort of sophisticated wordplay, but instead was simply a rant.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

it's literally all fluff that would be easily laughed at by any undergrad majoring in marketing. SV is so blatant that if I had a professor use this as an example I would ask if it's a parody.

Interesting opinion, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the veracity or value of what we're talking about. SV's uses a psychlogical approach to try and reach what consumer's truly value. In other words taking a look at the bigger picture of what people define as quality and what motivates those opinions. A quick search says that these methods have been in development since about 1968 as defined by Dr. Darrel Edwards, etc. And yes, I also have a fair amount of experience in both marketing AND especially data. I don't agree with your point above.

Seoltrain from the comments said it best:
The Motley Fools sorts it out far more diplomatically than I do:
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...n-quality.aspx

That last one is a nice way of saying that SVs survey shows not the quality of the car, but the quality of the marketing.

No disrespect, but I don't think you understood the Motley Fool article very well. This line really touches on its' key point in regards to quality measured via customers experience vs. quality measured as raw counts of defects.

"But surveys like Strategic Vision's help us understand why, for instance, FCA's U.S. sales were up 16% last year despite dismal-looking showings in more conventional quality assessments. FCA has a knack for developing products that attract loyal followings of owners -- and importantly, for listening to those owners and retaining their loyalty over time.

That counts. Whether it counts as "quality" is up for debate. But it's an important factor in the company's recent success."

The term "quality" had previously been defined as a sort of comparison of the count of the total number of defects (raw counts, no matter their size/impact or most importantly the expectation of the buyer). For Automakers, this definition was made by companies using basic process improvement methods and statistics to shape their ratings and award programs (like Consumer Reports and JD Power). When talking about a person's decision to buy a car or any product really "quality" is a relative and even subjective term (no matter how much we want it not to be). SV's approach addresses this.

As an example: My 86 shows dismal quality scores using traditional defect volume count methods for the myriad of minor issues it's had, but as the kind of buyer that would purchase this car, I expect it. I expect minor issues on a first run car. Do I think it's a low quality car? Nope. Being that same buyer, I've owned other first run performance cars and understand that a squeak or rattle doesn't a bad car make.

Another example: "My BMW's brakes needed replacement after 1 year. My wife's Audi's headliner came loose and the headlights got cloudy ". "Both BMW and Audi make quality automobiles". According to SV, all statements matter. According to Consumer Reports and JD Power, the third statement does not. In the real world, it does.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

The 2nd post from the Fiat 500 owners forum perfectly explains SVs results:
http://www.fiat500owners.com/forum/5...iable-car.html


Edit: However, just like folks on this forum.. plenty of 'enthusiasts' will chime in about how their car had no problems.

Indeed, my S.O.'s 2013 Fiat 500 Abarth Cabrio has had exactly 1 problem (a squeaky passenger window) with a lot of hard driving. That's why SV used thousands of surveys and not a few anecdotes from a forum.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

[
Final point.. In October of 2014 (9 months ago) Sergio Marchionne agree with CR's reliability study:
http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...onne/18176163/

So if the president of FCA is agreeing with CR and JDP, then one cannot logically conclude that FCA vehicles being manufactured at the time of that statement, magically became bastions of quality. They couldn't have and by Marchionne's own admission of quality issues with FCA in October of 2014, the results of the SV survey on vehicle "quality" should, at the very least, be taken with a grain of salt.

Edit 2: Thanks DAEMANO. If nothing else, it's been fun researching all this.

This illustrates the point you've continually missed. The way quality had been measured in the past doesn't exactly equate into what the buyer defines as quality. The previous defect volume count quality definition by CR actually has little to do with buyer satisfaction or feelings about quality in their vehicles. Marchionne was bold enough to say this, but understands that customers define quality as something more (not else, but more). A new definition was needed and SV is trying it. I'm glad you enjoyed the research, I hope you have an open enough mind to let in some of this man's differing opinion.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

SV's uses a psychlogical approach to try and reach what consumer's truly value.

I expect this mary-go-round to end soon since you're making my points for me. Marketing can manipulate what people value via their emotions about something and what people "value" is generally subjective, not only subjective, but fickle, fleeting and malleable. Subjective perceptions of value does not quality make. My dad loved Alfa Romeos, LOVED THEM, but they really were pieces of sh*t.. but you couldn't tell him that but regardless of his "perceived value", that POS Milano was not anymore reliable (or higher quality).

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

No disrespect

None taken, you're rad.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

but I don't think you understood the Motley Fool article very well.

You say that but then you repeat exactly the point I was making.

See:

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

"But surveys like Strategic Vision's help us understand why, for instance, FCA's U.S. sales were up 16% last year despite dismal-looking showings in more conventional quality assessments. FCA has a knack for developing products that attract loyal followings of owners -- and importantly, for listening to those owners and retaining their loyalty over time.

That counts. Whether it counts as "quality" is up for debate. But it's an important factor in the company's recent success."

SV's approach addresses this.

bold is mine of course but they are right.. it is up for debate apparently. Sales are up even though actual quality is still down. SV's survey value to the manufacturer is this it shows the manufacturer that their marketing department has earned their wages since it is "emotional purchasing" that is driving sales, not actual quality. Just like the other folks who bought that bridge I've been trying to sell you.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

As an example: My 86 shows dismal quality scores using traditional defect volume count methods for the myriad of minor issues it's had

That's because it's a low quality car. ... But fun as hell and F' anyone who says otherwise amirite?!

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Do I think it's a low quality car? Nope.

That's because this car is an emotional buy so it would score high with a survey like SV but low with CR or JDP.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

a squeak or rattle doesn't a bad car make.

I see what you did there.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

"Both BMW and Audi make quality automobiles".

Briefly.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I expect this mary-go-round to end soon since you're making my points for me. Marketing can manipulate what people value via their emotions about something and what people "value" is generally subjective, not only subjective, but fickle, fleeting and malleable. Subjective perceptions of value does not quality make. My dad loved Alfa Romeos, LOVED THEM, but they really were pieces of sh*t.. but you couldn't tell him that but regardless of his "perceived value", that POS Milano was not anymore reliable (or higher quality).

None taken, you're rad.

You say that but then you repeat exactly the point I was making.

See:

bold is mine of course but they are right.. it is up for debate apparently. Sales are up even though actual quality is still down. SV's survey value to the manufacturer is this it shows the manufacturer that their marketing department has earned their wages since it is "emotional purchasing" that is driving sales, not actual quality. Just like the other folks who bought that bridge I've been trying to sell you.

That's because it's a low quality car. ... But fun as hell and F' anyone who says otherwise amirite?!

That's because this car is an emotional buy so it would score high with a survey like SV but low with CR or JDP.

I see what you did there.

Briefly.

Define what "actual quality" means to you. Now have 5 other people do the same thing.

Some of the answers might come close, others won't be anywhere near each other.

Example:

"That's a great quality cookie!"

What does that mean? Does it mean the cookie has the least amount of imperfections? Does it mean that the cookie will store/last the longest? Does it mean that the cookie tastes the best? What defines best?

What you're missing here is that the definition of quality is subjective and malleable depending on what the beholder/buyer values as quality. Due to this the buyers definition of cannot be ignored in favor of a boilerplate definition. This definition must determine what data points are being measured. Sure SV sounds flowery. That doesn't appeal to you and that's ok. Still, it's not marketing doublespeak or manipulation getting people to think that "quality" is something that it's not. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. CR and JD miss that point entirely, and that's what SV is trying to capture.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

What you're missing here is that the definition of quality is subjective and malleable depending on what the beholder/buyer values as quality. Due to this the buyers definition of cannot be ignored in favor of a boilerplate definition. This definition must determine what data points are being measured. Sure SV sounds flowery. That doesn't appeal to you and that's ok. Still, it's not marketing doublespeak or manipulation getting people to think that "quality" is something that it's not. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. CR and JD miss that point entirely, and that's what SV is trying to capture.

I'm totally blown away by your unwavering need to stick up for SV. They are the definition of shady.

You are positing that the term "quality" is a strictly subjective (interpretive) term, it most definitely is not.

There's subjective and objective (inherent) quality of a 'thing' and how much importance subjectivity affects the total quality is entirely dependent on what that 'thing' is; it's function, task or potential. Generally when the term is used it's in reference to "overall quality" taking into account if the item function of emotion and utility.

ART (emotion): example of quality that is almost entirely subjective. It's open to interpretation, doesn't perform a utility and even in cases where there are measurable defining aspects, the subjective interpretation of it's quality is still at the core.

UTILITY: An item in which it's quality is entirely objective or inherent (measurable/defined) would be a drilling head on a boring machine or the speed of an internet connection. Subjectivity is mostly irrelevant and the measurable function is the core aspect of the quality. Even in auto racing, there are NO points given for the prettiest F1 car (as proven by the 2014 season), it's quality is laptime, a very measurable characteristic of utility.

A Consumer Vehicle is a combination of both sides of the spectrum (utility and emotion). CR and JDP focus mainly measurable aspects of quality (utility) while SV focuses primarily on immeasurable aspects of quality (emotion).

It's a much more sound and ethical practice to present definitions of "quality" based upon that which can be measured, counted and defined and let the buyer be guided by their own emotions after having that information. This is not misleading because I may have a list of 5 cars that I am "emotional" about and CR may help me narrow it down to 2 that score well so I know I'm getting "total quality" (emotional and mechanical) because I'm finding a car that's mechanically sound that also jives with my emotional desire.

Vs.

Presenting "quality" based upon only subjectivity without measuring inherent/mechanical quality leading consumers to make purchases that may not be in line with their objective (utilitarian) needs (road noise, reliability, MPG, safety etc). Here I may have those same 5 cars I'm emotional about but SV leads me to narrow my choices to 2 mechanically unreliable options because it had me believe they were top picks for "total quality" when indeed they were not.. they were only top picks for emotional quality and nothing more but it isn't presented that way.

SV is not a survey of value for the consumer, however it is a valuable survey for the manufacture because it's a measurement of the quality of their marketing*. This is the exact point The Motley Fool was making as well.

We're going around in circles now. You think strictly subjective surveys are an ideal way of measuring a car's quality where as I do not and in that we are completely allowed to disagree while still doing this:




*Marketing is business term that's a comprehensive strategy for bringing a product or service to market but it's most often related to advertising when in fact marketing incorporates all aspects of the product from inception to sales. Just wanted to clear the confusion as I refer to marketing a lot but I'm not simply referring to just advertising in doing so.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I'm totally blown away by your unwavering need to stick up for SV.

No, I'm saying that SV's approach is not meritless if the consumer defines quality differently than CR or JD Power or you.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

They are the definition of shady.

In your opinion. Your statement illustrates how important a persons definitions are. Perhaps you've deemed them "shady" because you don't understand regression analysis or process improvement as well as people who use these tools actually do. Your making a moral judgement about a company whos process and field you don't well understand.

Originally Posted by rice_classic

... attempts to define Utility and Art and use these

Utility and Art are terms used when describing Rational Choice theory. If you understood that to really any degree, then what I've been trying to explain to you would be obvious.

I'm just going to re-post the quote below because I believe it to be so relevant to this discussion. After which, I'm going to try and get the thread back on track because the 124 Spider looks like it's going to be one hell of a car. Thanks for the chat.


Post by "RobertSD" in RE: Ford showing strongly one year in a "Consumer Reports" quality report

... When did these studies (SV, JDPower, etc) start becoming useless? Was it when Ford finally achieved similar rankings to Toyota and Honda? Was it when Hyundai owners rated their cars the best last year in Strategic Vision’s survey? Ownership experience is expectation going in and execution coming out. The expectations for, say, Toyota and Honda are just extremely high. A single mechanical or trim defect could damage the experience because of expectations in that case. Then, you have transaction price. Hyundai and Ford owners get steals compared to Toyota and Honda owners in many cases. Price has an effect, too. The Yaris is probably the worst car made by Toyota and doesn’t even stack up to others in its class, but it’s cheap and fuel-efficient, and that’s EXACTLY why its owners bought one.

All automakers pay for these results. That doesn’t invalidate the data. If SV didn’t have real data asked from good questions, auto companies wouldn’t pay them for that data and their services. It isn’t worth the marketing dollars in even the medium run.

I would like real context and analysis before you dismiss something out of hand.

[rice_classic]

Oh dude, this thread is long gone. A new one probably would need to be started at this point. If there was an audience, they're gone now.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

No, I'm saying that SV's approach is not meritless if the consumer defines quality differently than CR or JD Power or you.

I agree it's not meritless. Data has merit. I'm saying using the term "Total Quality Survey" is a deliberate semantic misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

In your opinion. Your statement illustrates how important a persons definitions are. Perhaps you've deemed them "shady" because you don't understand regression analysis or process improvement as well as people who use these tools actually do. Your making a moral judgement about a company whos process and field you don't well understand.

You're attacking a strawman here as you assume that someone with an extensive grasp of regression analysis or process improvement wouldn't use these tools to deceive. Well I hope you're using a logical fallacy otherwise that'd be quite naive.
I don't need a degree in criminal psychology to know when I'm being deceived. I don't need a degree in organic sciences to know when I've stepped in bullshit nor do I have to be a musician to recognize the 4 most popular cords used in popular music. I'm am making a judgement, in that you are correct.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Utility and Art are terms used when describing Rational Choice theory. If you understood that to really any degree, then what I've been trying to explain to you would be obvious.

They may be terms of it, but I wasn't using RCT as a means of making my point or to elaborate on the definition of quality.

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Post by "RobertSD" in RE: Ford showing strongly one year in a "Consumer Reports" quality report

The problem with RobertSD's comment is two fold..

1) His example of meeting expectations explains how survey questions can skew data when doing surveys about quality that are opinion based surveys. And Robert illustrates my point that because of that it's all that more important to do unbiased testing of the aspects of quality that can be objectively measured like; defect rates, failure rates, warranty claims, reliability, etc etc. By excluding that data, you're literally telling half the story.

2) We have the context that he claims we don't have. SV isn't conducting the unbiased, measurable testing. They are only conducting a questionnaire of the owners steeped heavily in subjective data and regardless of how "good" the questions, without actually quantifying objectively the non-subjective aspects of quality of the vehicle, then that is the context to consider and in that context, referring to this survey as Total Quality is unequivocally misleading. They are telling half the story to the consumer but titling the book as "The Whole Story". I know of a certain cable new network that does this too.

But.. to your point, the data does have merit. But how much of what merit and for who... That's really what we're arguing about isn't it?