RDX's main competition off of Consumer Reports' recommended list
10-29-2007, 12:09 AM
#42
Safety Car
(
Thanks for the info Darth.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
Originally Posted by darth62
The RDX was rated "better than average," with a repair rate that was about 30% better than average and also better than nearly every first year model on the road. The "owner satisfication rating" (Would you buy this vehicle again?) was only average though.
The Mazda CX-7 was much worse than average, with one of the worst repair rates in it's class, about 60% below average and on par with the black record acheived by brands like Hummer and Caddy. The CX-7 also had one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the class with a very small percentage of owners saying they would buy again.
The BMW X3 also had below average reliablity, but only slightly below average. Owner satisfactoin was just average, like the RDX.
The Mazda CX-7 was much worse than average, with one of the worst repair rates in it's class, about 60% below average and on par with the black record acheived by brands like Hummer and Caddy. The CX-7 also had one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the class with a very small percentage of owners saying they would buy again.
The BMW X3 also had below average reliablity, but only slightly below average. Owner satisfactoin was just average, like the RDX.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
10-29-2007, 01:14 AM
#43
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLR8R
(
Thanks for the info Darth.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
Thanks for the info Darth.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
A constant CEL was a problem for early build CX-7's, related to the Swirl Shutter Valve(on cold starts), and the Gas Cap.
Some CR's survey groups are ridiculously too small to get a good, reliable survey result. Comparing the RDX,(which sold has sold over 22,000 units as of now, UNSURE but last I checked it was 19,*** units sold a couple of months ago) to Sedans that are in mass production is unfair, and in CR's survey samples are generally going to be bigger for vehicles have sold more, and since they don't release this information, you don't know therefore you cannot compare.
10-29-2007, 01:53 AM
#44
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Some CR's survey groups are ridiculously too small to get a good, reliable survey result. Comparing the RDX,(which sold has sold over 22,000 units as of now, UNSURE but last I checked it was 19,*** units sold a couple of months ago) to Sedans that are in mass production is unfair, and in CR's survey samples are generally going to be bigger for vehicles have sold more, and since they don't release this information, you don't know therefore you cannot compare.
The sample size needed to meet the standard of statistical significance for a response to a survey question for a population as few as 10,000 at a confidence level of 99% and a confidence interval of 10 is only 164 units.
CR has reported that they make no ratings with fewer than 200 units. I'd say that that passes the test of statistical significance at the 99% CL and 10 CI. And, you know what? You're not smart enough to contest that. CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about.
And if you want to understand the terms and numbers above LOOK THEM UP. Or, better yet, take a couple of BASIC courses in statistical surveying and analysis.
Sorry, everyone else. I just couldn't hold it in any longer.
10-29-2007, 02:05 AM
#45
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by XLR8R
(
Thanks for the info Darth.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
Thanks for the info Darth.
The interesting thing about CR "reliability" vs "owner satisfaction" is that in typical non-enthusiast cars (Impala/Taurus/Camry) satisfaction is closely related to reliability. The average drone is happy with his automotive appliance if it gives him no trouble -- and irritated if it forces visits to the stealership.
This correlation doesn't seem to hold up for enthusiasts. The Corvette for example, has always been high (often highest) on CR's satisfaction list despite decades of below average or worse reliability. Enthusiasts are quite willing to tolerate problems in order to drive their local "corkscrew" in America's Sports Car. I speak with 5 years experience as a '99 C-5 owner -- and '99 was the Vette's best year ever for CR reliability (briefly above average).
Regarding RDX satisfaction (only average); I'm guessing that that some RDX buyers thought they were getting a CRV-like cute-ute with an upscale badge. Acura's early efforts to promote the 4 cylinder fuel economy didn't pan out, plus the hard-edged, enthusiast's ride quality may have been unexpected for Moms coming from a minivan. So the average satisfaction may be more a result of mis-managed expectations, than any reliability issues.
Of course, CX-7 owners could be expected to have the same economy and ride complaints and -- being farther down the income food-chain, may be much less tolerant of it's abysmal reliability -- hence the low satisfaction.
X-3 buyers on the other hand, are expecting sport sedan handling and ride -- and the "premium" buyer tends to prioritize fuel economy lower. X-3 average satisfaction may be more related to failure to improve reliabilty (its been up and down) as the model matures.
My wife and I wanted a quick-steering, hard-edged, premium cute-ute with excellent reliability -- and we got both in the RDX -- 18000 miles with zero problems. Satisfaction....best vehicle purchase we've ever made.
Interestingly, the satisfaction for some "non premium" sporty SUVs was decent: RAV4, above average and Murano, above average. The "premium" vehicles all had average: Beemer X3 and X5, RDX, FX35/45. So, I wonder if the premium buyers just expect more.
Of course, that doesn't explain what the CX-7 has some of the lowest satisfaction ratings in the survey, but that might reflect the poor reliablity of that model.
10-29-2007, 02:07 AM
#46
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by ACURascal
OK. I'm freakin' sick to death of your bull. So, I'm pulling out the factual guide to the universe for AP.
The sample size needed to meet the standard of statistical significance for a response to a survey question for a population as few as 10,000 at a confidence level of 99% and a confidence interval of 10 is only 164 units.
CR has reported that they make no ratings with fewer than 200 units. I'd say that that passes the test of statistical significance at the 99% CL and 10 CI. And, you know what? You're not smart enough to contest that. CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about.
And if you want to understand the terms and numbers above LOOK THEM UP. Or, better yet, take a couple of BASIC courses in statistical surveying and analysis.
Sorry, everyone else. I just couldn't hold it in any longer.
The sample size needed to meet the standard of statistical significance for a response to a survey question for a population as few as 10,000 at a confidence level of 99% and a confidence interval of 10 is only 164 units.
CR has reported that they make no ratings with fewer than 200 units. I'd say that that passes the test of statistical significance at the 99% CL and 10 CI. And, you know what? You're not smart enough to contest that. CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about.
And if you want to understand the terms and numbers above LOOK THEM UP. Or, better yet, take a couple of BASIC courses in statistical surveying and analysis.
Sorry, everyone else. I just couldn't hold it in any longer.
10-29-2007, 02:14 AM
#47
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
You're on point, but what I think the reason for the low reliability ratings is because people define a "check engine light" as a serious problem(which in the case of the CX-7, it was not), and as the article that I linked states peoples idea of a serious problem is not really a "Serious Problem" by definition, and CR's surveys, fail to weed that out.
A constant CEL was a problem for early build CX-7's, related to the Swirl Shutter Valve(on cold starts), and the Gas Cap.
Some CR's survey groups are ridiculously too small to get a good, reliable survey result. Comparing the RDX,(which sold has sold over 22,000 units as of now, UNSURE but last I checked it was 19,*** units sold a couple of months ago) to Sedans that are in mass production is unfair, and in CR's survey samples are generally going to be bigger for vehicles have sold more, and since they don't release this information, you don't know therefore you cannot compare.
A constant CEL was a problem for early build CX-7's, related to the Swirl Shutter Valve(on cold starts), and the Gas Cap.
Some CR's survey groups are ridiculously too small to get a good, reliable survey result. Comparing the RDX,(which sold has sold over 22,000 units as of now, UNSURE but last I checked it was 19,*** units sold a couple of months ago) to Sedans that are in mass production is unfair, and in CR's survey samples are generally going to be bigger for vehicles have sold more, and since they don't release this information, you don't know therefore you cannot compare.
Fuel system: Check engine light, sensors (includes O2 or oxygen sensor), emission control devices (includes EGR), engine computer, fuel cap, fuel gauge/sender, fuel injection system, fuel pump, fuel tank, fuel leaks, stalling or hesitation.
However, the Mazda CX-7 also had reliablity problems that CR listed as "squeaks and rattles", "body hardware," "power equipment." There were lessor problems, but still significant for a new car, in "Audio system," "brakes," "transmission minor," "engine minor." So, even without the "check engine light" complaints, the CX-7 is still much worse than average.
10-29-2007, 02:23 AM
#48
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you bother to read up on how CR does things?
By the same token, if CR conducts their survey with voluntary responses, the conclusions are probably worthless. People with problematic [car make] cars would be more likely to complain and whine about the expected [car make]'s lack of reliability and swear that "they will never buy another [car make] again." People with lemon [other car makes] would be more likely to keep their problems to themselves because they don't want others to know that they were unlucky [or at fault themselves - Webmaster] to own lemon [foreign country] cars because "[foreign country]'s companies don't make lemons."
Surveys aren't just all about math! Techniques count more!
Surveys aren't just all about math! Techniques count more!
John Phillips wrote: "A few years ago, they had the [2 domestic nameplates and one foreign nameplate all of the same car] owner's satisfaction. The [domestic nameplate] had the least owner satisfaction of these three. Next was the [other domestic nameplate]. The best owner support was for the [foreign nameplate]. There was a fair spread between them. Funny thing: all of these are built at the same American plant, only varying, primarily, in "hood ornaments." How can the same car be perceived differently when the only real difference was the label?"
Chris Jardine wrote:
- Since the time this section was written, CR has "solved" (we would say "hidden") the problem by merging statistics for under-the-skin-twins. That makes it harder to criticize them, but does nothing to solve their underlying validity issues.
Chris Jardine wrote:
I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.
Example 2 - [same cars, different nameplates]. There were major differences with the engine, electrical, fit and finish, etc. between these two. The only difference between them was the name plate applied near the end of the assembly line and a code in the VIN. There were differences in standard levels of equipment, but, that should not statistically effect what CR would have us believe it did. This is another case of improper statistical procedures.
For these reasons, I for one simply cannot believe much of anything CR prints as statistical data.
(Webmaster note: the reliability differences could have based on different types of people buying each car, and treating them differently. If we generalize from this, are any Consumer Reports ratings worth looking at? Can we really compare a "sporty" car with a regular sedan, or cars in different price classes? Or even cars in the same "general" price class but with a couple of thousand dollars' difference in price?)Example 2 - [same cars, different nameplates]. There were major differences with the engine, electrical, fit and finish, etc. between these two. The only difference between them was the name plate applied near the end of the assembly line and a code in the VIN. There were differences in standard levels of equipment, but, that should not statistically effect what CR would have us believe it did. This is another case of improper statistical procedures.
For these reasons, I for one simply cannot believe much of anything CR prints as statistical data.
- Since the time this section was written, CR has "solved" (we would say "hidden") the problem by merging statistics for under-the-skin-twins. That makes it harder to criticize them, but does nothing to solve their underlying validity issues.
Those who send in their surveys are different from those who do not. Most studies try to raise their response rates through follow-up calls, letters, even post-cards. Many studies check on the characteristics of the nonrespondents to see what the error might be. Consumers' Reports does neither of these, as far as I know. Brent Peterson wrote a wonderful simile:
[A controlled experiment could use 30 carefully bred rats in cages]... A survey would be like having 100 lab rats starting the experiment and then letting them roam freely around the building with access to doors leading outside. Then measuring those who came back for dinner in their cages at the end of the experiment. Say 8 rats returned, you do not know what happened with those other 92 rats that escaped. ... [we presume they have different characteristics than the two that returned, just like people who do not return surveys are different from those who do. Note that we've adjusted the example slightly to reflect Consumer Reports' apparent response rate].
Raymond DeGennaro II pointed out that CR does not draw their data from the general public, only from subscribers....They have to prove that their data represents the general public, and they haven't.
The solution here is to get a larger non-subscriber sample and compare the results every ten years or so, if there's no difference.
Those who send in their surveys are different from those who do not. Most studies try to raise their response rates through follow-up calls, letters, even post-cards. Many studies check on the characteristics of the nonrespondents to see what the error might be. Consumers' Reports does neither of these, as far as I know. Brent Peterson wrote a wonderful simile:
[A controlled experiment could use 30 carefully bred rats in cages]... A survey would be like having 100 lab rats starting the experiment and then letting them roam freely around the building with access to doors leading outside. Then measuring those who came back for dinner in their cages at the end of the experiment. Say 8 rats returned, you do not know what happened with those other 92 rats that escaped. ... [we presume they have different characteristics than the two that returned, just like people who do not return surveys are different from those who do. Note that we've adjusted the example slightly to reflect Consumer Reports' apparent response rate].
Raymond DeGennaro II pointed out that CR does not draw their data from the general public, only from subscribers....They have to prove that their data represents the general public, and they haven't.
The solution here is to get a larger non-subscriber sample and compare the results every ten years or so, if there's no difference.
10-29-2007, 02:24 AM
#49
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People who are inclined to buy different brands may define "serious" differently (see above). If you've never received a survey, ask a friend who subscribes to see theirs before they return it (if they return it). You will notice that Consumers' Reports really doesn't say what a "serious" problem is. I believe should define it or say "any" problem. Matt Kennell posted an example:
By way of illustration, here's a post from Jim Eldridge:
We do not think an n of 2 is significant. These are illustrations of a general principle for which you can find ample support in the social psychology research literature.
"Oh I bought a Toyota, so this problem that I'm having really wasn't a big deal as I know Toyotas are reliable cars and the dealer tells me so and so do all the magazines."
This was evident in reactions to the problem of sludge in the engines of many Toyotas - a problem which Toyota, to its credit, eventually admitted and acted on. The Corolland forums were full of people claiming the problem was not real but simply in the minds of those who claimed they had it; and if was real, it was the fault of owners and not Toyota. We doubt they'd feel the same way if, say, Neons were victims of sludge.By way of illustration, here's a post from Jim Eldridge:
I have an 85 Dodge Daytona that has 135,000 miles on it. Runs great. At about 85,000 miles the timing belt broke, stranding my wife. The maintenance schedule says nothing about replacing the belt. Dodge thinks it's OK to wait till it breaks and then replace it. By the way, the design is such that it does nothing bad to the engine. However, to my wife, the car broke down and had a "serious engine problem".
My friend with a Nissan Maxima just had his 60,000 mile maintenance at the dealer. He had the timing belt replaced, the fuel injectors cleaned, oil change, etc. and a fuel injector replaced. Cost $850! If he filled out the CR form, he would show no major problems, just routine maintenance.
He then told me he was considering replacing all of his shocks because "it was about time." No Dodge owner would ever consider replacing shocks before the car bounced down the road. All Dodge had to do was recommend the belt change at 60,000 miles to avoid a "serious engine problem".
Will Mast said:My friend with a Nissan Maxima just had his 60,000 mile maintenance at the dealer. He had the timing belt replaced, the fuel injectors cleaned, oil change, etc. and a fuel injector replaced. Cost $850! If he filled out the CR form, he would show no major problems, just routine maintenance.
He then told me he was considering replacing all of his shocks because "it was about time." No Dodge owner would ever consider replacing shocks before the car bounced down the road. All Dodge had to do was recommend the belt change at 60,000 miles to avoid a "serious engine problem".
A friend with a Toyota used to brag about how trouble free it was until I showed him all the repairs, including a cracked exhaust valve, that were hidden in his 30,000 mile "maintenance" visits to the dealer.
The solution, of course, is to get far more specific - and perhaps, to be really careful, to find out something about owners' routine maintenance. If you replace the timing belt at 50,000 miles, you're less likely to have a broken timing belt than I am - since I replace it at 90,000 miles.We do not think an n of 2 is significant. These are illustrations of a general principle for which you can find ample support in the social psychology research literature.
10-29-2007, 02:28 AM
#50
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
The "check engine light" could well be occuring more often for the CX-7 than other vehicles. CR notes that the "Fuel system" is much worse than average reliablity for the Mazda. That includes, in their definition:
Fuel system: Check engine light, sensors (includes O2 or oxygen sensor), emission control devices (includes EGR), engine computer, fuel cap, fuel gauge/sender, fuel injection system, fuel pump, fuel tank, fuel leaks, stalling or hesitation.
However, the Mazda CX-7 also had reliablity problems that CR listed as "squeaks and rattles", "body hardware," "power equipment." There were lessor problems, but still significant for a new car, in "Audio system," "brakes," "transmission minor," "engine minor." So, even without the "check engine light" complaints, the CX-7 is still much worse than average.
Fuel system: Check engine light, sensors (includes O2 or oxygen sensor), emission control devices (includes EGR), engine computer, fuel cap, fuel gauge/sender, fuel injection system, fuel pump, fuel tank, fuel leaks, stalling or hesitation.
However, the Mazda CX-7 also had reliablity problems that CR listed as "squeaks and rattles", "body hardware," "power equipment." There were lessor problems, but still significant for a new car, in "Audio system," "brakes," "transmission minor," "engine minor." So, even without the "check engine light" complaints, the CX-7 is still much worse than average.
10-29-2007, 03:17 AM
#52
Safety Car
TrueDelta and AllPar have pointed out that Consumer Reports makes no effort to define "serious problem" for their respondants to the auto survey. They claim that this skews the data.
I wonder if this could be intentional to provide a fairer representation of how people actually perceive their ownership experience.
Firstly, it is hard enough to compel people to return RSVPs, surveys, DVDs, etc. Anything that doesn't immediately benefit them goes on the "later" pile. Making the survey more complicated decreases understanding, and increases irritation. Fewer surveys get returned.
Secondly, the organization is called Consumer Reports. They are looking for an average across the sample group. Is it possible that they want to know what people perceive as a "serious problem" to be reflected in the data?
Some people are thoughtful. Some people are flaming morons. (We have both groups represented on this thread alone!)
Will this definition of a "serious problem" not average out over the group? If the respondants are a fair representation of the auto user population; then what is "serious" to the average respondant will be perceived as "serious" to the group at large, will it not?
Consumer Reports is essentially a feedback loop. This would seem to support the goal of providing useful feedback.
What do you statistician types think?
(Personally, my experience with CR reviewed products has always closely matched the group's.)
I wonder if this could be intentional to provide a fairer representation of how people actually perceive their ownership experience.
Firstly, it is hard enough to compel people to return RSVPs, surveys, DVDs, etc. Anything that doesn't immediately benefit them goes on the "later" pile. Making the survey more complicated decreases understanding, and increases irritation. Fewer surveys get returned.
Secondly, the organization is called Consumer Reports. They are looking for an average across the sample group. Is it possible that they want to know what people perceive as a "serious problem" to be reflected in the data?
Some people are thoughtful. Some people are flaming morons. (We have both groups represented on this thread alone!)
Will this definition of a "serious problem" not average out over the group? If the respondants are a fair representation of the auto user population; then what is "serious" to the average respondant will be perceived as "serious" to the group at large, will it not?
Consumer Reports is essentially a feedback loop. This would seem to support the goal of providing useful feedback.
What do you statistician types think?
(Personally, my experience with CR reviewed products has always closely matched the group's.)
10-29-2007, 06:34 AM
#54
Alpha Geek
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
You're what, one person? MOST of the customers that drives BMW's (NOT previous Acura owners, it's only normal that an Acura owner would cross shop an Acura with the others) Just don't even bother to cross shop, they've always driven BMW's and always will. The RL's sales numbers speak for themselves( Five hundred Last month ).
As far as RL sales numbers go....how many do they actually make a month? I don't know, and you certainly don't.
10-29-2007, 09:01 AM
#56
Trolling Canuckistan
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Most of the people that buy BMW's don't even consider Acura.
The RDX's main competition is the X3, and the new EX.
Not the CX-7 or 9.
The RDX's main competition is the X3, and the new EX.
Not the CX-7 or 9.
10-29-2007, 09:13 AM
#57
Lizard King
Arguing with the insane is pointless.
I highly suggest this wonderful tool so you don't have to deal with the insane tool...
"This message is hidden because AbovePrime. is on your ignore list. "
I highly suggest this wonderful tool so you don't have to deal with the insane tool...
"This message is hidden because AbovePrime. is on your ignore list. "
10-29-2007, 09:33 AM
#58
the CX-7 is a piece of unrefined shit on wheels....the problems the CX-7 has, its extravagant TSB list, and its strong dislike for cold weather will, and forever keep that suv in the shop more so than the road. Consumers report on repairs is spot on.
EVERYONE USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION ON AP. IT WORKS!
EVERYONE USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION ON AP. IT WORKS!
10-29-2007, 12:00 PM
#60
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Do you know what went wrong? Not at all. CR won't tell you those things, and it matters the most, what actually happened, not "Brakes" and "CEL".
What exactly do you expect CR to do? List all the parts of a brake system in each issue and then detail the specific parts that keep going wrong in a unreliable vehicle like the CX-7?
Honestly, the degree to which you clutch at straws in a vain attempt to justify a very stupid purchasing choice is almost pathetic.
10-29-2007, 12:05 PM
#62
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by XLR8R
TrueDelta and AllPar have pointed out that Consumer Reports makes no effort to define "serious problem" for their respondants to the auto survey. They claim that this skews the data.
I wonder if this could be intentional to provide a fairer representation of how people actually perceive their ownership experience.
Firstly, it is hard enough to compel people to return RSVPs, surveys, DVDs, etc. Anything that doesn't immediately benefit them goes on the "later" pile. Making the survey more complicated decreases understanding, and increases irritation. Fewer surveys get returned.
Secondly, the organization is called Consumer Reports. They are looking for an average across the sample group. Is it possible that they want to know what people perceive as a "serious problem" to be reflected in the data?
Some people are thoughtful. Some people are flaming morons. (We have both groups represented on this thread alone!)
Will this definition of a "serious problem" not average out over the group? If the respondants are a fair representation of the auto user population; then what is "serious" to the average respondant will be perceived as "serious" to the group at large, will it not?
Consumer Reports is essentially a feedback loop. This would seem to support the goal of providing useful feedback.
What do you statistician types think?
(Personally, my experience with CR reviewed products has always closely matched the group's.)
I wonder if this could be intentional to provide a fairer representation of how people actually perceive their ownership experience.
Firstly, it is hard enough to compel people to return RSVPs, surveys, DVDs, etc. Anything that doesn't immediately benefit them goes on the "later" pile. Making the survey more complicated decreases understanding, and increases irritation. Fewer surveys get returned.
Secondly, the organization is called Consumer Reports. They are looking for an average across the sample group. Is it possible that they want to know what people perceive as a "serious problem" to be reflected in the data?
Some people are thoughtful. Some people are flaming morons. (We have both groups represented on this thread alone!)
Will this definition of a "serious problem" not average out over the group? If the respondants are a fair representation of the auto user population; then what is "serious" to the average respondant will be perceived as "serious" to the group at large, will it not?
Consumer Reports is essentially a feedback loop. This would seem to support the goal of providing useful feedback.
What do you statistician types think?
(Personally, my experience with CR reviewed products has always closely matched the group's.)
10-29-2007, 04:38 PM
#63
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MMike1981
the CX-7 is a piece of unrefined shit on wheels....the problems the CX-7 has, its extravagant TSB list, and its strong dislike for cold weather will, and forever keep that suv in the shop more so than the road. Consumers report on repairs is spot on.
EVERYONE USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION ON AP. IT WORKS!
EVERYONE USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION ON AP. IT WORKS!
You know what I love about your posts the most, you still talk about me in your posts,
. Works really well, h**l I might even use it.
10-29-2007, 04:52 PM
#64
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
Find me any reliablity survey anywhere that lists concerns with greater specificity than "brakes."
What exactly do you expect CR to do? List all the parts of a brake system in each issue and then detail the specific parts that keep going wrong in a unreliable vehicle like the CX-7?
Honestly, the degree to which you clutch at straws in a vain attempt to justify a very stupid purchasing choice is almost pathetic.
What exactly do you expect CR to do? List all the parts of a brake system in each issue and then detail the specific parts that keep going wrong in a unreliable vehicle like the CX-7?
Honestly, the degree to which you clutch at straws in a vain attempt to justify a very stupid purchasing choice is almost pathetic.
And please my purchase was just for what I wanted it to be for, it was perfect, I wanted a great award winning engine and high modifiability, High ride height, a Six Speed, low maintenance costs, and STYLE, something Acura can DREAM about.
10-29-2007, 05:12 PM
#65
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
No.
And please my purchase was just for what I wanted it to be for, it was perfect, I wanted a great award winning engine and high modifiability, High ride height, a Six Speed, low maintenance costs, and STYLE, something Acura can DREAM about.
And please my purchase was just for what I wanted it to be for, it was perfect, I wanted a great award winning engine and high modifiability, High ride height, a Six Speed, low maintenance costs, and STYLE, something Acura can DREAM about.
I own neither of these vehicles but happen to prefer the styling of the RDX slightly. To me, it seems more daring and more original. My guess is that the RDX will still look great years from now. I also like the styling of the CX-7 quite a bit, but IN MY OPINION (and, this is only my opinion), the RDX looks more edgy.
10-29-2007, 05:34 PM
#66
Trolling Canuckistan
Originally Posted by XIS
Arguing with the insane is pointless.
I highly suggest this wonderful tool so you don't have to deal with the insane tool...
"This message is hidden because AbovePrime. is on your ignore list. "
I highly suggest this wonderful tool so you don't have to deal with the insane tool...
"This message is hidden because AbovePrime. is on your ignore list. "
It really must be tough to go through life not having any social skills at all and be so lacking in friendship that Azine was the closest you could get.
I know that it's hard to understand this concept as most of us use these forums to exchange ideas and offer assistance to our fellow man. What you need to realize is that AP is so loathsome in person that this is the best she can get.
10-29-2007, 07:15 PM
#67
Safety Car
Originally Posted by XLR8R
Some people are thoughtful. Some people are flaming morons. (We have both groups represented on this thread alone!)
Originally Posted by black label
It really must be tough to go through life not having any social skills at all and be so lacking in friendship that Azine was the closest you could get.
I know that it's hard to understand this concept as most of us use these forums to exchange ideas and offer assistance to our fellow man. What you need to realize is that AP is so loathsome in person that this is the best she can get.
I know that it's hard to understand this concept as most of us use these forums to exchange ideas and offer assistance to our fellow man. What you need to realize is that AP is so loathsome in person that this is the best she can get.
AP is impervious to insults and thrives on negative attention. She probably learned at an early age that negative attention was better than none at all. Now she is intentionally provocative in order to feed her lifelong need for negative attention. It's all she knows. She has expressed appreciation for hostile insults numerous times.
It's really quite sad, but she won't find the help she needs on a site meant for sharing automotive knowledge.......
Originally Posted by XIS
"This message is hidden because AbovePrime. is on your ignore list. "
10-29-2007, 07:37 PM
#68
Safety Car
Originally Posted by darth62
There is a concept in survey research called "Construct validity." In other words, does a survey actually measure what it proports to measure? In CR's case, they tested this by getting access to some warranty data and correlating their survey response with the data... The correlation was actually pretty high. So, while I agree with you that they going after consumer perceptions, those perceptions do seem to map unto reality.
dealership is a "serous problem". I have to make time in my schedule, may or may not get a loaner, and may lose use of the primary vehicle for several days, if the dealer prioritizes higher revenue jobs or is waiting on parts.
All warranty work -- such as a nuisance CEL -- would meet my definition of serious. I would want to see it published as such in the CR data.
10-29-2007, 08:25 PM
#69
Diggin' the RDX!
I took an online look at the Mazda. I think it is a nice-looking vehicle with a great profile -- except I find the fender flares obnoxious (ditto for RX-8 fender flares, they are just unattractive imho). What really turned me off from the CX models, though, was the interior. It seemed a little on the cheap side to me vs. the Acura. I didn't cross-shop BMWs at all. Although I think they are [most of them] gorgeous, and in fact pretty amazing vehicles, the quality/reliability is not there for me. However, I don't begrudge anyone their BMW purchase, as again, they are simply beautiful rides...and hey, different strokes for different folks. Same thing for the Mazdas. If it works for you inside and out, great, go with it and enjoy.
I have always been a big Mazda fan but the original point that Ford is crippling them in reliability is well made. I find this hugely disappointing as they have imho been a mfr of consistent quality. I'm also not a huge fan of CR's editorial but over a million owners is more than a statistically valid sample.
I have always been a big Mazda fan but the original point that Ford is crippling them in reliability is well made. I find this hugely disappointing as they have imho been a mfr of consistent quality. I'm also not a huge fan of CR's editorial but over a million owners is more than a statistically valid sample.
10-29-2007, 08:31 PM
#70
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darth62
Believe it or not, your own view of styling is not shared by the entire free world.
I own neither of these vehicles but happen to prefer the styling of the RDX slightly. To me, it seems more daring and more original. My guess is that the RDX will still look great years from now. I also like the styling of the CX-7 quite a bit, but IN MY OPINION (and, this is only my opinion), the RDX looks more edgy.
I own neither of these vehicles but happen to prefer the styling of the RDX slightly. To me, it seems more daring and more original. My guess is that the RDX will still look great years from now. I also like the styling of the CX-7 quite a bit, but IN MY OPINION (and, this is only my opinion), the RDX looks more edgy.
10-29-2007, 08:32 PM
#71
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLR8R
black label nailed it for those of us who are more logic/engineering oriented and less interested in human factors.
AP is impervious to insults and thrives on negative attention. She probably learned at an early age that negative attention was better than none at all. Now she is intentionally provocative in order to feed her lifelong need for negative attention. It's all she knows. She has expressed appreciation for hostile insults numerous times.
It's really quite sad, but she won't find the help she needs on a site meant for sharing automotive knowledge.......
AP is impervious to insults and thrives on negative attention. She probably learned at an early age that negative attention was better than none at all. Now she is intentionally provocative in order to feed her lifelong need for negative attention. It's all she knows. She has expressed appreciation for hostile insults numerous times.
It's really quite sad, but she won't find the help she needs on a site meant for sharing automotive knowledge.......
10-29-2007, 08:47 PM
#72
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black label
C'mon guys, go easy on AP. Seriously have any of you ever been in a situation where you were so lonely that starting arguments over the internet was the only form of human interaction you could get?
It really must be tough to go through life not having any social skills at all and be so lacking in friendship that Azine was the closest you could get.
I know that it's hard to understand this concept as most of us use these forums to exchange ideas and offer assistance to our fellow man. What you need to realize is that AP is so loathsome in person that this is the best she can get.
It really must be tough to go through life not having any social skills at all and be so lacking in friendship that Azine was the closest you could get.
I know that it's hard to understand this concept as most of us use these forums to exchange ideas and offer assistance to our fellow man. What you need to realize is that AP is so loathsome in person that this is the best she can get.
If you felt secure enough in your purchase you would not respond to my posts that mention the CX-7, and respond as calling it a "POS" and a "step down in styling" "you have no taste if you buy one", as those are NOT true, what IS true is that the RDX's plastic interior is just cheap, and YES the CX-7's interior is cheap, but it doesn't start at over 33K. They're so many more interiors on the market that are a step above the RDX's interior, at 37K you can do SO much better.Some of the time I don't even need to post in the thread for someone to mention my name and the CX-7.
This whole THREAD was based off of someone thinking they made the right choice, then bragging all about it, "oh hey look, I know I made the right choice because both the X3 and the CX-7 are not recommended and are terrible, ugly cheap sh** cars, and how the moronic owners should have bought reliable, 40MPG, Super Neutral Handling, Stop shorter than a BMW, turbo lag free, ultra never have to take it in to the dealer ever, interior padding galore, and style trend setting RDX's, they made the wrong choice, I made the right one, HEY LET ME MAKE THIS THREAD TELLING YOU THAT! AND LETTING YOU KNOW YOU MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE BY BUYING ONE OF THE MOST RELIABLE AUTOS ON THE PLANET EARTH EVER!! I'M GOING TO TELL YOU YOU MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE, AND PAT YOU ON THE BACK TOO!"
hahahahahahhahahaha, please call me a girl some more, I mean really make your day.
10-29-2007, 09:28 PM
#74
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
The RDX is bland and boring (owners with a brain will agree) and will get outdated pretty fast, it also pulls mixed opinons on the styling,(mixed enough that reviewers mentioned it in their review) Not the same for the CX-7, it gets rave reviews, and interior in the RDX is unacceptable, as every review points it out to be a bit cheap at that price point.
Once again, lies and untruths -
Consumer Reports on the RDX (basically finds the controls complicated, but otherwise loves the RDX and, in contrast, notes lots of cheap features in the Mazda):
On the RDX
"The interior shows good attention to detail, with excellent fit and finish."
on the CX-7
"Interior plastics are nicely textured but hard. Switchgear is of high quality. But the console, cup holders, glove box, and headliner feel cheap"
Edmunds.com on the RDX (Loves the RDX interior, notes some hard plastic, but gives it thumbs up overall. In contrast, see the kitschy nature of the CX-7 interior):
on the RDX
"We all agree on the appeal of the Acura's modern and techy interior. We found it inviting and perfectly put together, with comfortable and supportive front seats covered in finely textured leather. The driver seat is eight-way power-adjustable, while the passenger seat has manual controls"
on the CX-7:
"The interior design is classic Mazda, meaning on the edge of contrived style"
As for the "owners with a brain" comment - I am not an owner, but I do have a brain and I happen to like the looks of the RDX a lot.
Again, don't make the assumption that your own view of a how a car looks is shared by the entire universe. I respect that you like the looks of the CX-7 better, but not everybody shares your opinion.
10-29-2007, 09:31 PM
#75
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CG
Base w/Tech. Pkg.
5
Cabin decor is a trendy mix of textures and shapes. Assembly quality is very good. However, the interior makes liberal use of cheap-looking, hard plastic surfaces, which is disappointing for both an Acura and for this price level.
5
Cabin decor is a trendy mix of textures and shapes. Assembly quality is very good. However, the interior makes liberal use of cheap-looking, hard plastic surfaces, which is disappointing for both an Acura and for this price level.
10-29-2007, 09:35 PM
#76
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
This whole THREAD was based off of someone thinking they made the right choice, then bragging all about it, "oh hey look, I know I made the right choice because both the X3 and the CX-7 are not recommended and are terrible, ugly cheap sh** cars, and how the moronic owners should have bought reliable, 40MPG, Super Neutral Handling, Stop shorter than a BMW, turbo lag free, ultra never have to take it in to the dealer ever, interior padding galore, and style trend setting RDX's, they made the wrong choice, I made the right one, HEY LET ME MAKE THIS THREAD TELLING YOU THAT! AND LETTING YOU KNOW YOU MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE BY BUYING ONE OF THE MOST RELIABLE AUTOS ON THE PLANET EARTH EVER!! I'M GOING TO TELL YOU YOU MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE, AND PAT YOU ON THE BACK TOO!"
.
And, I don't recall anybody here saying the X3 was "ugly or terrible" or that the CX-7 was "ugly or terrible." Just that both cars are not as reliable as the RDX and, in the case of the CX-7, the reliablity difference is marked.
10-29-2007, 09:38 PM
#77
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CG says
We think the dashboard puts style over function. Most controls are logical and handy, but audio/climate settings are undersized readouts in a distant dashtop slit. Some audio-control markings are a bit small, too. Instruments are large and clear. A big central knob and dashboard screen set navigation, audio, and other functions. The screen can be hard to read by day, and some operations distract with many steps, though included voice control simplifies some tasks.
10-29-2007, 09:42 PM
#78
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're going "choose" the RDX over the "competition" as you've already stated.
I see no reason for you to go for the EX-35, CR hasn't stamped it as reliable and recommended.
(As you based the reason for someone not to buy the CX-7, for not being reliable, you should wait to make SURE that CR says it is)
You should go back and re-read(not just this thread either), plenty called the CX-7 "terrible" as a sum up.
I see no reason for you to go for the EX-35, CR hasn't stamped it as reliable and recommended.
(As you based the reason for someone not to buy the CX-7, for not being reliable, you should wait to make SURE that CR says it is)
You should go back and re-read(not just this thread either), plenty called the CX-7 "terrible" as a sum up.
10-29-2007, 09:47 PM
#79
Not an Ashtray
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
You're going "choose" the RDX over the "competition" as you've already stated.
I see no reason for you to go for the EX-35, CR hasn't stamped it as reliable and recommended.
(As you based the reason for someone not to buy the CX-7, for not being reliable, you should wait to make SURE that CR says it is)
You should go back and re-read(not just this thread either), plenty called the CX-7 "terrible" as a sum up.
I see no reason for you to go for the EX-35, CR hasn't stamped it as reliable and recommended.
(As you based the reason for someone not to buy the CX-7, for not being reliable, you should wait to make SURE that CR says it is)
You should go back and re-read(not just this thread either), plenty called the CX-7 "terrible" as a sum up.
As for the CX-7, I think you are getting some reactions because of your constant bashing of the RDX. I think most of us appreciate the CX-7 for being a nice vehicle in it's class - as long as you don't worry about reliablity.
10-29-2007, 09:49 PM
#80
7th Gear
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Age: 54
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it funny how some people can make gross judgements about other car owners. I just bought an RDX and love it.
In my household we own a BMW Z3, and lease a BMW 530. Each car has its strengths and weaknesses and have importance and meaning to me as why I bought them. I wouldn't say I am loyal to a single brand, and wouldn't have expected to purchase another BMW, just because I own or have owned one before.
The RDX replaced a Jeep and for the record, i don't like the X5 or X3....they're ugly.
Reliability was one of the largest factors why I chose an Acura. After a failing Jeep and constant repair issues, I wanted to purchase not lease a car this time that wouldn't fall apart after 3 years, 5 years, or longer. I really liked and considered the Ford Edge, but had to rule it out because of the past reliability problems.
Thanks for the CR survey info...I know I made a good decision
In my household we own a BMW Z3, and lease a BMW 530. Each car has its strengths and weaknesses and have importance and meaning to me as why I bought them. I wouldn't say I am loyal to a single brand, and wouldn't have expected to purchase another BMW, just because I own or have owned one before.
The RDX replaced a Jeep and for the record, i don't like the X5 or X3....they're ugly.
Reliability was one of the largest factors why I chose an Acura. After a failing Jeep and constant repair issues, I wanted to purchase not lease a car this time that wouldn't fall apart after 3 years, 5 years, or longer. I really liked and considered the Ford Edge, but had to rule it out because of the past reliability problems.
Thanks for the CR survey info...I know I made a good decision