>I doubt that the sample was made up of a large
>proportion of angry, frustrated owners; if this was the case all
>makes and models would be be described in less than glowing terms,
>yet the main Japanese makes and models were described in positive
>terms.
This is a good point: surveys are a double-edged sword. And it is a
fact that the Japanese models scored higher, as they have always done in
the past. Peugeot's position in the table has always been a relatively
low one, though, yet they still manage to sell cars by the shedload.
This suggests to me that there are factors at work other than the
empirical data of the survey, probably masochism ;)
>Surveys, when the sampling is done properly, are remarkably
>accurate.
True. But they tend to not qualify their results with hard data. We
may know that 85% of Subaru owners love their cars, but we don't know
what it is about them that they love. It may be that the car is a
complete shambles, but eighteen cupholders and enough interior lighting
for a subway station make up for it.
[BTW: for anyone who may be wondering: I'm not picking on Subaru. I
like Subarus. In fact, I'm probably buying an Outback later this year.]
>That people continue to lousy cars back by lousy dealers is
>regression from the mean. Folks by the appalling Chevy Cavalier
>simply because the car is cheap, adequate, and there's a dealer on
>every block.
But not because they actually like the car, or can identify any of its
redeeming dynamic qualities (and, having driven the Cavalier, it has
none). I think my choice of words ("lowest common denominator") could
perhaps have been better: "baseline" may have been a clearer term.
>But the mean is that the market eventually largely
>eschews a lousy product when it has the choice. Hence the Toyota
>Camry (which costs thousands more than the Chevy Malibu) is the best
>seller and the Malibu is not.
True. But there's also a lot of the 'everyone's got a Camry, therefore
they must be good' mentality at work. People, by and large, buy cars
the same way they buy washing machines: as appliances. They don't care
how it works or why it's better or worse than its rivals. They just
want it to go, which is a reasonable expectation. Hence people buying
these things without really looking beyond the obvious.
>Who is to say that people are not capable of making an informed
>buying decision?
By "informed buying decision" I meant that people generally have their
minds made up as to what they want before they actually buy it. They
may look at other possibilities, but for the most part they'll go with
whatever happens to be the 'standard'.
>And why are the Camry and Accord the lowest
>denominator compared to their class?
This, I believe, is where I should have said, 'baseline.'
>Compared to what? The
>unrefined Hyundai Sonata, and the unreliable Chevy Malibu?
Agreed. The Sonata is, at best, a good attempt, and the Malibu is just
plain horrible.
>I would
>say that the Accord and the Camry are among the best cars in their
>class (which in the US doesn't include the 406) along with the VW
>Passat, which is experiencing rocking sales.
Absolutely. I didn't mean that they were bad cars, just that they were
representative of the average in their class.
I think one thing that bugs me since I moved here is that there is not a
lot of variety in the types of cars available. You either have a
hatchback, a three-box saloon, or an SUV. Cars that I would classify as
'interesting' just aren't seen here; everyone seems to drive the same
thing. And there seems to be very little in the way of innovation these
days from the American motor industry. The Corvette is a brilliant car,
yet GM can't get rid of them because everyone wants more and more
Suburbans, a vehicle not terribly distantly related to a steam locomotive with no brakes.
- Cameron.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun 16 Apr 2000 - 21:18:12 UTC