http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/used-cars/reliability/best-worst-in-car-reliability-1005/reliability-findings/reliability-findings.htm
If you're curious about something that's not listed in the free part of the site, let me know and I can post it.
LOW The Chrysler Sebring Convertible has the worst predicted-reliability score among new cars in our survey. It is 283 percent worse than the average model.
:confused:
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 23, 2008, 05:08:42 PM
LOW The Chrysler Sebring Convertible has the worst predicted-reliability score among new cars in our survey. It is 283 percent worse than the average model.
:confused:
Now I hate the Sebring with a passion, but that's just bullcrap.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 23, 2008, 06:46:06 PM
Now I hate the Sebring with a passion, but that's just bullcrap.
You know this...how?
I'm not at all surprised if they're having problems with their new retractable hardtop.
If I remember how percents work correctly, that's a complicated way of saying it's almost three times as likely as any other car to have a problem. Does that sound more believable?
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 23, 2008, 05:08:42 PM
LOW The Chrysler Sebring Convertible has the worst predicted-reliability score among new cars in our survey. It is 283 percent worse than the average model.
:confused:
But how many actual problems is that per car?
Quote from: Secret Chimp on October 23, 2008, 07:23:59 PM
If I remember how percents work correctly, that's a complicated way of saying it's almost three times as likely as any other car to have a problem. Does that sound more believable?
Three times more likely than the average car to have a problem, sure. The average car has very few problems, so anything remotely lemon-prone is going to be much more likely to have problems than the average.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 23, 2008, 07:26:50 PM
But how many actual problems is that per car?
(http://www.vangelismovements.com/CarlSaganB.jpg)
BILLIONS and BILLIONS
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 23, 2008, 07:26:50 PM
But how many actual problems is that per car?
Scroll to the bottom of the linked page below, and it shows the average problem rates for various areas. It doesn't have an average problem rate per vehicle, but most figures are low.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/used-cars/reliability/reliability-histories-406/index.htm
Good for Ford, at least. They sure needed whatever good press they can get these days.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on October 23, 2008, 07:23:59 PM
If I remember how percents work correctly, that's a complicated way of saying it's almost three times as likely as any other car to have a problem. Does that sound more believable?
That's a bit more reasonable.
Quote from: ifcar on October 23, 2008, 07:17:42 PM
You know this...how?
I'm not at all surprised if they're having problems with their new retractable hardtop.
Retractable hardtops are a pain in the ass. The G6 hardtop requires constant fiddling.
Hmm, I'd buy neither the most or least reliable car.
Quote from: ifcar on October 24, 2008, 06:27:42 PM
It's the same thing!
But the way it is said and the context is different. Saying something over 200% worse is a lot worse than saying it's three times more likely to have a problem.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 24, 2008, 07:38:12 PM
But the way it is said and the context is different. Saying something over 200% worse is a lot worse than saying it's three times more likely to have a problem.
It is? :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on November 01, 2008, 10:59:26 AM
It is? :huh:
No, but its easier to misunderstand.
Lets say car A reports 1 major problem per 100 cars. That's a "failure" rate of 1%
And then car B reports the same thing, but at a rate of 3 per 100.
So, car a has a failure rate of 1% and car B a rate of 3%. Some would look at that and say " that's a difference of 2%, that's not bad at all." While others might say "Car B's failure rate is 300% of Car A's."
Both statements are factually correct, but someone not paying cloase attention to the phrasing of the statements might be led to believe otherwise.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 01, 2008, 03:42:08 PM
No, but its easier to misunderstand.
Lets say car A reports 1 major problem per 100 cars. That's a "failure" rate of 1%
And then car B reports the same thing, but at a rate of 3 per 100.
So, car a has a failure rate of 1% and car B a rate of 3%. Some would look at that and say " that's a difference of 2%, that's not bad at all." While others might say "Car B's failure rate is 300% of Car A's."
Both statements are factually correct, but someone not paying cloase attention to the phrasing of the statements might be led to believe otherwise.
Exactly.
^Right, but we're also talking about 120 problems per 100 vehicles (like Lexus) versus something like 280 problems per 100 vehicles (like Kia), not 1 or 3% of total vehicles. I know what you're getting at but anyone who looks at any statistics withoutknowing the data is foolish. In this case, 300% worse is a lot worse no matter how you spin it.
In the end, something almost certainly WILL go wrong with your vehicle, any vehicle, it just comes down to the number of visits you want to make to the dealership. Do you want to make two or three times as many visits?
As usual, more Consumer Reports moneyhat bias.