NS Dev
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 12:41 AM |
|
|
there is a lot there that I either can't accurately answer or can't be bothered to!
What I will say is whilst the "family" S2000 doesn't do 32,000 miles a year, it does do over 15,000 a year, and in the two years and
33,000 miles so far covered, there has yet to be a fault, or any "outside of normal sevicing" work.......of any sort however minor (and my
mum is bloody fussy, I wouldn't want to work on her car very often!!). I know there shouldn't be after only 30 odd thousand miles, but
that's more than can be said for my dad's BM 330Ci!!, or the Fiat Coupe Turbo before it, or the Alfa 156 v6 before that, or the nissan
200sx before that..........................................
I guess I am personally biased, as are you Steve, so we'll have to pass the debate over to others
|
|
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 07:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
I can see that 50 people with one unhappy is 2% and that 10000 votes with 200 unhappy is 2%.
BUT...... with such a small sample, if there is a 0.5% chance of gearbox failure, you dont have enough cars (or milage?) to see a fault. a 0.5% chance
of gearbox failure with 10000 cars is fifty people complaining against none for the 50 sample.
[Edited on 17/11/05 by steve_gus]
You are quite right, that is why I mentioned sample sizes. You do have to have a representative number of cars from each group to make the results
fair.
Also, as with any satisfaction survey, you have to take the results with a pinch of salt anyway. The majority of people will only take part if they
have had really bad or really good experiences with their car. This in effect, statistically, renders probably the top 15 and bottom 15 of the survey
misrepresentative of the general view. Unfortunately this is one of the problems that Stats cannot overcome.
Theoretically the results should not be biased or skewed, however due to the way we think and respond to questions, often results can be
misleading.
I dont take much notice of the results of the survey to be honest. You know what cars to avoid (French and Italian) and which ones to go for (British,
Japanese and German) if you want a reasonably reliable car. Just drive down the motorway on a hot summers day and count the numbers of cars broken
down. I bet you 80% of them will be French, which seems to sit well with the survey overall!
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 08:02 AM |
|
|
There is a plane, if you look at accident statistics, that is extremely dangerous and has a worse record than any russian airliner. Its the revered
concorde. By airliner standards, a relatively llow flying hours example crashed and burned. This was one out of 12 planes made, and was therefore a
12% or so chance of catastrophic accident compared to most other planes less than one percent.
We all know that this was a one off after 27 years of flying.
But using percentages (especially when you look at the lowish miles the planes actually did) makes Concorde seem like a total death trap.
Better fly on a Tupolev then
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 08:04 AM |
|
|
I think i bassically agree with you Flack......
Along with NS's positive experiences, I can say that my 26k so far on my Laguna have also been positive - so far. Buy if you search then net for
it you find a lot of failures. Perhaps Im bucking the trend or somethng has changed...
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 08:25 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
There is a plane, if you look at accident statistics, that is extremely dangerous and has a worse record than any russian airliner. Its the revered
concorde. By airliner standards, a relatively llow flying hours example crashed and burned. This was one out of 12 planes made, and was therefore a
12% or so chance of catastrophic accident compared to most other planes less than one percent.
Quite right. This does infact mean that the concorde was not a safe plane to fly on if you base it purely on the stats. It doesnt matter how long it
had been around, what matters is the number of flights compared to the number of failures. If you work out how many flights the concorde has made,
then the number of accidents you can find out how reliable it was. It wont come out well compared to something like a 737...
Had the concorde carried on flying, assuming it did not have another accident, its reliability would have gone back up again. This is a case where the
results are heavily skewed since not enough data was available to get a reliable result.
David 
PS 1 in 12 is 8.3% [(1/12)*100]. But I will let you off as its early in the morning
[Edited on 17/11/05 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 17/11/05 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
yeah - that illustation came to me just as I was leaving for work and didnt take a lot of care.
I found this, which was interesting for carstats buffs
http://lib.smmt.co.uk/articles/homepagearticle/HomePageArticles/2005%20-%20SMMT%20Motor%20Industry%20Facts.pdf
lists numbers and makes sold in 2004 in the UK from the prime source, the motor mfr association.
atb
steve
[Edited on 17/11/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
