jsleesma

kevinb I think that old_fairmont_wagon and NickF are talking about the 6-speed that works with the Duratec 35. I'm pretty sure that one is different than the farmed out 6 speed on the Fusion.

But I think the point here is that Nissan was SELLING the CVT once they decided to put it on a vehicle. In other words, they found some BENEFITS that come from a CVT (even if, as I readily admit, it is some stupid made-up problem that only yuppie scum care about) and TOLD people about them in the commercial. Why doesn't Ford do this? They could start by ADVERTISING that their 3.5l V6 makes its 267hp on regular fuel while Toyota's makes its 268 on premium.

It looks like the new MKZ has already started getting some good press. Edmunds.com's Inside Line has a "First Drive" up and they really seem to like the new Duratec 35. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=116471

I think that Richard has pointed out one of the most positive signs for Ford. They really haven't screwed up a launch recently. The effect of the botched launch of the Focus is still being felt by Ford, since it really ruined the image of a great small car. I think that Focuses wouldn't have to be so highly discounted today if the launch had gone off correctly. If Ford could get more $$ per Focus we might even have seen the euro version.

We shouldn't gloat about bad stuff happening to GM. I'm pretty convinced that when this happens to GM it degrades the reputation of all American cars, which is something we don't need now.

You are totally right. From the company's perspective, you have to assume your cars aren't as reliable and just kill yourself coming up with better and better ones. You are also right about Ford squandering brands. No more Taurus, Escort, Thunderbird, Probe, etc. Why? Who knows. But from the consumer perspective, many people aren't buying these cars based on bad data. Everyone keeps saying "They're not as reliable." Well reliability is a question we can answer. We can get the number of each model sold, find out how many problems each had, and come up with HARD DATA about reliability. Its totally possible. What I'm saying is that Consumer Reports does NOT do this. Its not that they are intentionally biased towards imports, its that the method of sampling they use simply cannot give us accurate information on reliability. I haven't seen JD Power data, but I think that it is much better than Consumer Reports. The problem is that most articles throw CR's data around like it was the gospel truth.

Doesn't the new Duratec 35 make 265 now? I bet they won't gush about the MKZ the way they do the Maxima.

I can agree with the stories--if you had lousy vehicles from GM or Ford, but great ones from Toyota, why would you switch back? BUT what I HATE hearing about is Consumer Reports and their stupid quality rankings. Check out this blurb: According to our latest (2005) subscriber survey, Japanese and Korean vehicles still have the fewest problems on average: 12 problems per 100 vehicles. This number, however, has held steady for the newest models since 2002, when they improved from 15 problems per 100 in the previous year. On average, Asian vehicles are by far the most reliable, but their improvement has slowed. Look at those first words. "According to our SUBSCRIBER SURVEY..." As anyone who has ever done statistical work can tell you a SUBSCRIBER SURVEY CAN NEVER BE ACCURATE. Your sample size is totally unpredictible. Who returns the cards? Who SUBSCRIBES TO YOUR MAGAZINE? All this becomes not truly random, and hence is suspect. An accurate survey must randomly select people from the entire population who owns that car, and it MUST interview each person selected. If more import owners subscribe to CR (and I'm SURE that they do) then the sample size for import owners surveyed will be huge--leading, perhaps, to more accurate results. If fewer domestic owners subscribe, the sample size will be small--leading to drastically inaccurate results. This might not be a problem except that these reliability ratings come down to 6 problems per hundred vehicles. Now, that is quite a few problems, but with such bad data, their results may not be statistically significant at that level. What that means is that the bias in their sample (the fact that only import owners subscribe to CR and, hence, get surveyed) means that they may not be able to tell you anything to that level of accuracy. Also, this doesn't really explain the difference in perception. Everybody loves VW and other imports (at least where I live in Chicago) but the European cars are up at like 21 problems per 100 (by far the worst). So I wonder whether reliability is really what's causing the drive to imports.

It seems to me that it won't matter what the technical merits of the F-150 are. As soon as Car and Driver etc. get their hands on the Tundra it will be "Truck of the Year" just like the Ridgeline (which, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a TRUCK because it has no FRAME) (just venting a bit)