Not one -- two. Our 02 SE7 with 50k? miles had a single visit to the dealer that was not scheduled -- a faulty MAF. Our LR3 has had zero trips to the dealer thus far and 8k and 11 months later is ticking along just fine. The other Land Rover owners I know have similar stories -- one guy still has a Series I Disco with 120k miles. If you dig around online however you will find some horror stories ... but how many times do people create a post to inform others that nothing is going wrong?

I for one am *glad* that I have the logic to dig through net posted information and anecdotal party talk. If I listened to everyone that has a buddy/aunt/uncle/friend with a car that has had issues I never would have owned many of the great cars I have. If you take the time to talk with actual owners you often get a very different story than you do from seccond and third hand sources.

 

Palmateer said that as a veiled shot at an opinion of CR I posted in another thread.

 

you're right....it's just that working with so many Land Rovers, I saw a big big percentage of them....glad yours are treating you well though!!

 

So what you are saying is because it

 

Still, it has been my experience, when looking at the data on cars that I am familiar with (ones I have owned or that family and friends have owned) that the data seems to be pretty accurate.

For example, German cars, especially Mercedes and Audi take a beating on electrical reliability. They should because they truly have a high number of failures in those areas. Is this because they are truly less reliable than Japanese cars --- I think so. Are they truly less reliable than American cars --- I think not. I think that their electrical reliability is mediocre and that their high level of electrical sophistication (some would say excessive) pushes up the number of failures.

The truly weird part, is that even with the issues that people have with Audi and Mercedes, they seem to have an image of quality product. Marketing and image engineering? You bet. Cool engineering in both but lousy execution.

I really think that the most impressive comeback in image would have to be Audi. Not long ago you couldn't give them away because of the bogus "unintended acceleration" issue. Now they are perceived as an engineering and quality leader. Hell, even I fell for it.

 

actually, indicting the source is a quite common debating tactic - you need a valid source for any information, or it is meaningless.

That said, the article you linked does raise some very good points, and I entirely agree with what they are saying. I might go so far as to suggest that anyone who uses CR for anything but cage lining is a fool. Their metrics and criteria are arbitrary. There is nothing in there like "Stability in crosswinds at highway speeds," or "Ease of making left turns on a busy street," or even "Overall feeling of safety and comfort, when blindfolded."

In addition, if you like American cars, and prefer to buy mostly American vehicles, you aren't going to find much you like in a CR magazine. You'll likely not subscribe, and therefore not participate in their surveys. So you end up with a "random" group selected for their preference for the same things, i.e. foreign makes and don't mind filling out surveys saying how great their foreign car is. Pretending that a feedback mechanism like Consumer Reports survey has a random subscriber base is just that - pretending. And without a random base, all a CR award means is CR readers approve. It says nothing about how Joe Random might respond to the same vehicle, or how Jill Random will think of her car in three years. It is entirely misleading to present CR awards as somehow reflective of the greater population, and a dead end for car makers to pay any heed to the latest CR.

I much prefer an Underwriters' Laboratory approach (as much as that has some problems) whereby vehicles would be tested for certain parameters, and no subjective editorial quality judgements based on certain scoring areas. People could assemble their preferred set of criteria, look it up and see how they rate. Things like power:weight, weight:stopping distance, wheel width:slalom speed, whatever. Just a set of metrics that make no pretension to being anything other than arbitrary. If you want to use them to make a decision, feel free, but it would make clear that people arguing over the "best" car would be arguing over which set of metrics to use, not over which is somehow divinely "better."

 

I'll start with 'I agree with your post'...
but since it's the sort of person I am, it actually is a logical fallacy to attack the messenger. If the content of the message is questionable then you should look at the message. On the other hand, if the facts are not in dispute then the messenger is irrelevant. If a die hard right wing conservative and a bleeding heart left hand liberal both tell my my fly is unzipped, I shouldn't question either source, I should check my fly

 

[QUOTE=rockville,Oct 27 2005, 06:38 PM] I'll start with 'I agree with your post'...
but since it's the sort of person I am, it actually is a logical fallacy to attack the messenger.

 

I don't subscribe to CR and they sent me a questionare for my LR3.

Lot's of assumptions being made in this thread.


Here is another, today's average was probably above average or excellent 10 or 15 years ago.

 

*sigh* this is the kind of article that makes all scientists look bad.

It's one of the most poorly reasoned articles I've ever seen. Why? Where does he present real(statistically significant data) to back up any of his 'theories'. He made no effort to prove it beyond a few isolated cases of statistics(without reference to who or how they were collected). One of the biggest complaints is his use of random web comments to support his arguments. You just can't do that.

Who are these people that he quotes? Why should I believe anything they say as accurate? Are they experts? Are they relatively unbiased? Do they support their beliefs with facts or with assumptions? The answer is we have no idea. Who couldn't find 1000 different opinions and viewpoint on any number of topics. If you wanted to construct an argument you can always find random people to support it. In any scientific article you always cite your sources. Why, because it allows the reader to go examine those sources and determine for themselves if those sources are believable. This 'author' fails to do that and as such all testimonials must be considered with the utmost suspect. Considering that very few if any of the testimonials make an attempt to back up their beliefs with facts you cannot assume they are anything but opinions. What do opinions mean in a scientific article? Unless they come from an established expert in the field they mean nothing.

The truly sad thing is that the author uses the very methods that he bitches that consumer reports uses. What is the sample rate for the 'quotes' that he makes? Think he chose 20 or so consumer experiences out of the how many millions on the web? That's well under 0.002% response sampling. Wasn't he bitching about consumer reports getting a response rate of 6-12%? Also he threads together a very few individual experiences to attempt to draw a conclusion. Is 20 experiences a statistically significant number? It wouldn't be to me, but wasn't he claiming that consumer reports too often uses a statistically insignificant sample? Shouldn't he hold himself to the same standard that he wishes to hold consumer reports to?

The reality is there is little evidence presented that suggests that the conclusions he draws is anything more than theories. Considering the lack of evidence and the potential for conflict of interest you cannot reliably believe the article. There are just too many questions and not enough answers. It is unfortunate it would be an interesting topic to explore.