[mkaresh]

I wanted more up-to-date car reliability information that included actual repair rates. So in late 2005 I started getting people together to make this possible. TrueDelta now reports absolute repair rates that make the differences between cars much clearer. Results are updated four times a year, so it's possible to track cars closely as they age.

Over 200 Corvette owners have already signed up to participate. A good start, but more are needed to provide full results for all years. So I'm grateful that this forum has given me permission to post this thread.

Participants simply report repairs the month after they occur on a one-page survey. When there are no repairs, they simply report an approximate odometer reading four times a year, at the end of each quarter.

To encourage participation, participants receive full access to all results, not just those for the Corvette, for free.

For the details, and to sign up to help out:

Car reliability research

[nyvette]

Interesting, Do you have any existing reports on the Corvette?

[mkaresh]

We currently have preliminary results for the 2007 and 2008. Both are better than average--28 repair trips per 100 cars for the 2008, and 39 per 100 for the 2007.

We'll have a third prelminary result, for the 2006, when results are updated next month.

For full results, which would be visible on the site to non-members, we need 25+ responses. Currently we have 16-21, depending on the year, so not far off.

[CH-Z51]

Just signed on, great idea! Reports from car magazines and Consumer Reports are BS and have O credibility with me.

[Hardnoks1957]

in.

[Pappytinker]

Originally Posted by CH-Z51

Just signed on, great idea! Reports from car magazines and Consumer Reports are BS and have O credibility with me.

Consumer Reports does not have enough money to purchase and test every automobile on the market so they depend upon reports by the members (subscribers) who own the cars. So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Since Consumer Reports bases its evaluations on information supplied by people who own the cars they report on, you are saying that the car owners reports are BS. Is that correct?

Further, if the one you have is so trouble free that you can't believe what everybody else has reported, you need to become a subscriber, receive the survey and fill it out to get the information about your car into the data pool.

From The Christopher Prayer;
"Never let me forget that it is far better to light one candle than to curse the darkness..."

[smokinvette]

I thought this was such a good idea what this guy was doing.

Great job Michael

[mkaresh]

Originally Posted by Pappytinker

Consumer Reports does not have enough money to purchase and test every automobile on the market so they depend upon reports by the members (subscribers) who own the cars. So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Since Consumer Reports bases its evaluations on information supplied by people who own the cars they report on, you are saying that the car owners reports are BS. Is that correct?

Further, if the one you have is so trouble free that you can't believe what everybody else has reported, you need to become a subscriber, receive the survey and fill it out to get the information about your car into the data pool.

From The Christopher Prayer;
"Never let me forget that it is far better to light one candle than to curse the darkness..."

I started this research not because they are biased but because their research process is slow and deeply flawed. You can find my main critique of their approach here:

Seven serious problems with Consumer Reports

One key difference: their current ratings are based on a survey conducted in April 2008. Our results cover owner experiences through June 2009.

So, do you want to know how reliable a car was over a year ago, when it was over a year younger and had 14,000 fewer miles on it, or how reliable it has been lately?

[Vette Hobo]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I started this research not because they are biased but because their research process is slow and deeply flawed. You can find my main critique of their approach here:

Seven serious problems with Consumer Reports

One key difference: their current ratings are based on a survey conducted in April 2008. Our results cover owner experiences through June 2009.

So, do you want to know how reliable a car was over a year ago, when it was over a year younger and had 14,000 fewer miles on it, or how reliable it has been lately?

[Pappytinker]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I started this research not because they are biased but because their research process is slow and deeply flawed. You can find my main critique of their approach here:

Seven serious problems with Consumer Reports

One key difference: their current ratings are based on a survey conducted in April 2008. Our results cover owner experiences through June 2009.

So, do you want to know how reliable a car was over a year ago, when it was over a year younger and had 14,000 fewer miles on it, or how reliable it has been lately?

Regarding "Seven Serious Problems with
Consumer Reports"

1. "Serious problems" - times in shop and days in shop may be a function of the competence of the technician or the availability of parts and may not be a one for one relationship with the car itself.

2. "Relative ratings" - I will contend that the average member (subscriber) to Consumer Reports does not use the CR exclusively and does understand that the ratings are relative. I don't care that your mathematics calculates that there is "difference was just one-tenth of a serious problem per car." That is still a difference of 10% and that is significant in my book.

3. "Ranges" - again, ranges are just the starting point. An intelligent consumer will search for and read more than just what is depicted by the blobs. And, just as in #1, trips to the shop and days in shop may be a function of the competence of the technician or the availability of parts and may not be a one for one relationship with the car itself.

4. "Only averages" - the report that the average eight-year-old domestic brand model was reported (on page 17 of the 2005 auto issue) to have fewer than one-and-a-half "serious problems" per year means that over the eight year life of the car it had a dozen serious problems. You might want that car but I surely don't. Compare that to my 1998 Dodge Intrepid. In the 11 years that I have owned it, it has had one serious problem; transmission speed sensor.

And, odds are based on the law of averages. How are you going to generate odds without using averages.

5. "Survey (in)frequency" - I disagree with your conclusion that people won't accurately remember what happened. People who are astute enough to subscribe to CR pay attention to the products they have bought and will remember what happened. My 1993 Magnavox TV had a problem with the sound in 1999. The problem was a fried silicon control rectifier in the amp circuit that, coincidentally, I fixed it by unsoldering the bad one and soldering in a replacement.

6. "Stale information" - if someone is interested in a hot new design, the hot new design will influence the purchase decision far more than reliability statistics. And, reliability statistics may go out the window if the design is hot enough and new enough. Otherwise, you would have no source for gathering your statistics.

Most of us know that hot new designs may suffer in the beginning with serious problems but, over time, they will probably be fixed or eliminated. Gathering data from a universe that is too small can significantly skew the results and conclusions that are made from those results.

7. "Fossilization" - If the members (subscribers) were not confident or, at least, content with the reports they publish, CR would have been out of business a long time ago.