|
Deteriorata posted:The maintenance costs estimate comes from the recommended service intervals by the manufacturers. The repair costs estimate is derived from the costs of extended warranties (after stripping out the profit, incentives, and other non-repair based factors). So nearly complete bullshit then.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Car One
Service costs: $2000 Car Two
Service costs: $2000 They're the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
French Canadian posted:I want to get rowdy and tow things and hear the motor scream at 55mph because it's geared so low. Is this the way to do it? The C6 transmission is a three speed automatic with a top gear ratio of 1.00:1, so the tire size will determine how much screaming you do at highway speeds. With 35's at 55 MPH you'll be doing about 2200 RPM. http://www.businesspath.com/business_paths/auto/rpm-calc.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
French Canadian posted:I want to get rowdy and tow things and hear the motor scream at 55mph because it's geared so low. Is this the way to do it? 4WD and towing capacity have nothing to do with each other. And no, it's not geared to "scream at 55 mph" what the gently caress kind of question is that?  PRIUS BATTERY CHAT ALERT Prius or other Toyota hybrid vehicles no longer require complete battery pack replacement if individual cells start to show signs of failure. Prois has 2 battery packs, about 40 cells each. Individual cells cost $30-60 to replace and that's including labor at local mechanic, the more you do at once, the cheaper it gets. You can do this poo poo yourself, it's very easy. They are sold used and new all over the internet. https://www.ebay.com/bhp/prius-battery-cell Go on youtube and see how easy that poo poo really is. I understand that dealerships and dishonest mechanics will capitalized on the fact that average person is scared shitless of electricity and will insist on replacing the entire bank. Just like they push you to replace an entire engine or transmission, when it could be repaired at much lower cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
nm posted:5 year TCO is a bullshit number for reliability because all the major components are under warranty still. You could have your engine rebuilt annually and have a good tco. I was comparing 2012 models, both of which were well out of warranty. Your complaint is meaningless. If you want to make a real argument, find some alternate numbers and show how Edmund's is wrong. Real costs for real consumers will be substantially lower than their estimates, because real consumers price shop. Since Edmund's uses a consistent methodology and applies it equally to all cars, though, it's a useful benchmark for making comparisons. If you find something better and more quantifiable, I'd be delighted to hear about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I was comparing 2012 models, both of which were well out of warranty. Your complaint is meaningless. No, that doesn't make his complaint meaningless. Deteriorata posted:If you want to make a real argument, find some alternate numbers and show how Edmund's is wrong. That's not how it works. Say Edmunds based their TCO on the phase of the moon the day the car came off the assembly line. Would a person have to come up with alternate numbers to say the numbers are bullshit? What if alternate numbers don't exist? Do we just accept that the phase of the moon on the day of manufacture is an accurate measure of reliability? Deteriorata posted:Since Edmund's uses a consistent methodology and applies it equally to all cars, though, it's a useful benchmark for making comparisons. Being "useful" does not follow from "consistent methodology".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
I know a lot of "car people" hate it for some reason, but I like Consumer Reports and think they have solid info on relative reliability between vehicles. It's nice cause they note which ares people recorded issues with so you can make a judgement call on whether it matters to you. Their info also gives a better idea of nuisance things that won't necessarily show up in dollars spent on repair, like squeaks and rattles. Anecdotally, I've looked at CR back issues for a few older vehicles and it lined up pretty well with what I know from elsewhere. Eg, I bought an '06 Volvo XC 70 in 2016 and looking old issues the problem areas lined up with what I read on various volvo forums: the 01 and 02 years have big transmission issues due to some dumb programming on Volvo's part that was pretty much sorted by '04. The CR used car ratings match up with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
extended warranties are also not priced on a cost plus basis, much like everything else
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
There's dashboardlight. They explain their methodology here.quote:Unlike J.D. Power, which focuses their studies on the earliest portions of a vehicles life, and Consumer Reports, which regulates its study to surveys filled out by owners of late model vehicles, LTQI has been designed to assess the long-term reliability of used cars from the point they are three years old to the end of its life cycle. They get their data from vehicle inspections done by ASE mechanics at car auctions, but its based on powertrain issues only. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:extended warranties are also not priced on a cost plus basis, much like everything else Yeah, we have no idea what kind of cross-subsidizing extended warranty companies are doing. I would actually be surprised if they aren't leveling out their pricing by cross subsidizing vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:No, that doesn't make his complaint meaningless. What the hell are you talking about? His complaint was that I was comparing cars that were still under warranty. I wasn't. Thus his complaint was actually meaningless. There is nothing to white knight there. Edmund's methodology is not hidden. They're quite open about it. If you disagree with how they estimate costs, point out where you think they are wrong and suggest something that might be better - and then take it up with them. They've been posting these numbers for at least a decade, and I've yet to see anyone complain about them. They're one of the few sources that even attempts to quantify car costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
mostly the fact that extended warranties are not priced according to the cost to deliver service for that individual unit or model
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I've yet to see anyone complain about them. Except nearly every time you post them in this thread. The point is, you continually post their figures as if you can tell if they mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:mostly the fact that extended warranties are not priced according to the cost to deliver service for that individual unit or model quote:Repairs
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Except nearly every time you post them in this thread. Show how they're wrong, then. Nowhere else on the internet is hostile to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
right i understand the methodology, i just question that margins are the same on extended warranties by model. i have priced extended warranties from the OEM side and that does not match my experience at all. when we postmortemed our extended warranties it looked something like this Terms A Model 1 Options Package I - 7% Terms B Model 1 Options Package II - (3%) Terms B Model 2 Options Package I - 15% total gross margin on EW: 9.5% there is no way that Edmunds has reliable data on this
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Show how they're wrong, then. Nowhere else on the internet is hostile to them. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this. The problem is not that they're wrong, it's that we can't know if they're wrong or right. The argument against them being made is that there's plausible worlds where their numbers accurately reflect the cost of ownership and plausible worlds where their numbers do not and we do not have the information to discriminate between those worlds. A response to that argument is not "prove that we're in the world where their numbers are inaccurate". They might have an inside track on the exact breakdown per model for extended warranty companies. They might not. I lean towards thinking they don't have such highly proprietary information. FWIW, I do not have a problem with Edmunds in general. Their reviews are almost always where I start my car shopping process. Thermopyle fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
powderific posted:I know a lot of "car people" hate it for some reason, but I like Consumer Reports and think they have solid info on relative reliability between vehicles. It's nice cause they note which ares people recorded issues with so you can make a judgement call on whether it matters to you. Their info also gives a better idea of nuisance things that won't necessarily show up in dollars spent on repair, like squeaks and rattles. I think CR does a pretty good job, but I think the criticism a lot of "car people" levy against them is that they don't really factor in much beyond TCO for their recommendations. They might give some comments in passing like "sharp handling" or "good styling", but those ultimately don't get weighted for much. Which isn't necessarily a problem. Most car buyers don't really care much about anything beyond TCO. But I've dealt with people who think CR is gospel and barely even test drive cars and say stuff like "oh my god why would you ever buy x when CR said y was better!" all based on a single CR analysis. CR is a good data point, but their perspective is bland. For a lot of people that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm not sure how many ways I can say this. Whether their final numbers are accurate or not is not the issue. You're getting hung up on this and it's not relevant. It says right up front it's an estimate. No one is representing it as an exact value. It's based on a set of assumed conditions that are close to average, but no one will drive exactly like Edmund's is assuming. It's a standard for comparison, like how gas volumes are compared at STP. For any given person, their actual use of the car will vary from Edmund's standards and thus no one will find their costs being exactly what Edmund estimates. However, any car they buy would vary in the same way, however. If Edmund's estimate is 1/3 too high, it will be 1/3 too high for nearly any car. This is how it is useful. Edmund's may estimate Car A to be $120 per month, and Car B to be $150 per month. In actuality, Car A might only cost you $80 per month, but B would cost $100. Car A is still cheaper to own than B, but the exact difference will depend on how you drive them. So the whole point is not that their numbers are individually accurate, because they're not and no one is pretending they are. They are useful for comparisons between two cars to get a feel for how much of a cost difference there actually is between them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Whether their final numbers are accurate or not is not the issue. You're getting hung up on this and it's not relevant. It's good that they provide the data because it's going to show glaring differences in some cases, but it is by no means set up to provide the kind of independently authoritative recommendations you consistently use it for in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:I don't understand how you make the connection about the data lacking accuracy while completely missing how the lack of accuracy also undermines any certainty about comparisons between or among data. There is no guarantee in their model that inaccuracies are consistent across all vehicles in a way that supports an ordinal comparison, let alone one that's informative at the interval/ratio level. The consistency of their methodology does not rule out confounders in the form of hidden discrepancies across entire marquees, models, dealers, drivers, geographical regions, etc. that ultimately provide a consistent advantage or disadvantage to certain cars. For a given person, those confounders are going to be roughly the same regardless of what car they buy, thus the comparison remains valid. I can't think of many variables that would apply to a Toyota bought in Peoria but not a Nissan bought instead by the same person in the same place, for example. I'm sure there are probably some but they're not numerous or significant enough to invalidate a comparison. You seem to be primarily concerned with picking nits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Whether their final numbers are accurate or not is not the issue. You're getting hung up on this and it's not relevant. The main issue people always bring up completely undermines the reliability of Car A vs Car B comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:For a given person, those confounders are going to be roughly the same regardless of what car they buy, thus the comparison remains valid. quote:You seem to be primarily concerned with picking nits. Again, I support the use of this data for what it's good for (getting a rough idea about cost of ownership of types of cars), but it's not helpful for making comparisons at the level of thousands of dollars (which is what you seem to think it ought to be used for).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:They could be, but there is nothing built into their methodology to support this. Commonsense assertions of "close enough" are exactly why the science of statistics exists, because commonsense assertions are extremely poor predictors of real world outcomes, even when you're working with a large data set. Confounders are also not limited to being personal-use based and may show up in ways that advantage or disadvantage entire marquees or individual vehicles - again, there is nothing about having a consistent methodology, prima facie, that makes it automatically fair to all of its subjects. The burden on any comparative analysis is to demonstrate this fairness, not on someone else to point out a lack of it by providing evidence of error. I'm using their data to provide rough estimates and comparisons. I'm not sure what you think I'm using it for. The main problem here seems to be that Edmund's data don't back up a lot of assertions people like to make in this thread and it pisses them off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm using their data to provide rough estimates and comparisons. I'm not sure what you think I'm using it for. Deteriorata posted:The Corolla is rated 28/35 (C/H) and the Prius is 54/50, so they're full of it. Deteriorata posted:From Edmunds' TCO data: Deteriorata posted:Edmund's 5-year TCO numbers (based on 2012 models, the farthest back they go): Deteriorata posted:Edmund's 5-year TCO estimate (which includes depreciation) for a 2016 Impreza is $30,871. A 2016 500X is $31,037. Financially, there is no difference. Deteriorata posted:Edmund's TCO estimates for a Prius are about the same as a Mazda 3. The Repair and Maintenance costs are also about the same (comparing 2012 models, ). Deteriorata posted:From Edmund's TCO estimates: Deteriorata posted:Yeah, the main difference is that the Prius is a pure driving appliance. It is not a car you drive for fun. It's for stop-and-go commuting. I almost solely lurk in this thread but this poo poo is like coming across flat earth or climate change denial posts for me. Feel free to have the last word.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:You're using it to provide authoritative conclusions about differences or similarities regarding the cost of ownership on the scale of thousands of dollars. That's not something it's powered to do. See a quick quote grab from your last two pages of post history in this thread: Now I'm confused. I recognize Edmund's data are noisy. When numbers come within a few percent of each other, I say it's probably not meaningful. When the gap is larger I comment that it's larger and try to keep the numbers in perspective. Why is that a problem? I'm trying to explain the data in response to someone asking about data. I show the numbers to demonstrate that I've looked at them and the conclusion I've drawn about them is probably valid. I'm backing up my conclusion with evidence by showing my work and citing my sources. In my life as a scientist and teacher that was generally regarded as good form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Edmunds TCO calculator is stupid, and using it as some sort of gold standard reference point is what's pissing everyone off. It's not peer reviewed scientific information. It's a dumbass website that makes a ton of assumptions, and your argument seems to boil down to "prove the data is bad" and "prove that I'm wrong" neither of which we have to do. Your method might be fine, your data is junk. There's a lot of knowledgeable car guys in here, and you're not going to convince us that in the REAL WORLD a 2012 Mazda 3 and 2012 Prius will have the same ownership costs over years 5-10 of the vehicles life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Edmunds TCO calculator is stupid, and using it as some sort of gold standard reference point is what's pissing everyone off. It's not peer reviewed scientific information. It's a dumbass website that makes a ton of assumptions, and your argument seems to boil down to "prove the data is bad" and "prove that I'm wrong" neither of which we have to do. And my standard response is, "Show me something better." I do not pretend Edmund's is a gold standard, it's just the only data that's readily available. It is far better than unsourced rumors and gut feelings. Lots of things "everyone knows" turn out to be complete bullshit. I will take bad data over no data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I will take bad data over no data. This is why everybody is telling you to shut the gently caress up about Edmunds TCO figures
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:And my standard response is, "Show me something better." Literally nobody wants to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I will take bad data over no data. That's not good science or logic at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
“Bad” evidence is better than no evidence if you need to make inference. It is just as well to say there is not sufficient credible evidence for me to make an inference that I would be confident in. But that is not very helpful. Both are fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
saintonan posted:That's not good science or logic at all. That's actually exactly the way science works all the time. You make decisions and build theories based on the data you have, not the data you hope to have someday. All data are bad, it's just a matter of degree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:And my standard response is, "Show me something better." From an epistemological standpoint that's even worse than rumors and gut feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's actually exactly the way science works all the time. That's absolutely not true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I will take bad data over no data. That's been made abundantly clear. Nobody else wants to though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:For a given person, those confounders are going to be roughly the same regardless of what car they buy, thus the comparison remains valid. they are not since the fact that they try to back-calculate margin on a extended warranty package without knowing that specific ew's margin means that they are not accurately estimating total service and maintenance spend. you have not responded to that criticism of methodology. i am curious about your response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
I think Consumer Reports is better than Edmunds. Unfortunately you have to pay for access. Here's Consumer Reports page on how they arrive at their reliability numbers and I think it's a much better example of how to document what your'e doing: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq/ Edmunds basically has two sentences. Guinness posted:I think CR does a pretty good job, but I think the criticism a lot of "car people" levy against them is that they don't really factor in much beyond TCO for their recommendations. They might give some comments in passing like "sharp handling" or "good styling", but those ultimately don't get weighted for much. Yeah, I think it's probably more general annoyance with people who are themselves bland reading CR than it is CR itself. That type of person would be annoying either way, and there's the enthusiast version of them too. I hate "oh you got an x. That's allright I guess but I would have gotten y." type people. CR does actually talk about the performance of a car in a decent if limited way. They only have a paragraph so obviously they're glossing over a lot of stuff, but if you read their impressions of more performance oriented cars it's often the main thing they talk about and usually it matches up with what I read from more performance oriented reviewers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
The car reviewers at CR are car people. I think they've done lemons and whatever that beater rally thing is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:4WD and towing capacity have nothing to do with each other. And no, it's not geared to "scream at 55 mph" what the gently caress kind of question is that? drat dude... I mean is the top gear so low that to do 65mph it will be at a very high RPM. And I do think that 4wd would apply for all the lovely dirt roads I need to tow things on. I know 4wd typically handicaps the overall towing capacity. But I want to tow larger things in bad conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The perception that Priuses are cheaper to maintain seems to be largely illusory. The difference seems to be that normal ICE cars will nickel and dime you with relatively small things fairly frequently, while with a Prius things break rarely but when they do it costs a lot to fix it. Overall costs then roughly even out. Nope. First off, The Prius was CR’s TCO champ for a whole slew of years ~2011-up, it still may be, I haven’t checked. It knocked the Fit off the #1 spot, BTW. Secondly, I manage a fleet of state vehicles, and have access to all service records for the entire department, roughly 3500 vehicles. We are subject to a state directive where a certain percentage of our vehicles must be hybrids or alt-fuel vehicles, so we have a slew of Fusions and Prius’s, along with a few Civic Hybrids and C-Max’s. So I did some digging. Prius’s are bulletproof. Like, amazingly so. We had one go back under warranty for an airbag issue, another with complaints about screwy brakes, although I think that may have been operator failure, since nothing amiss was found. And that’s about it. Just oil changes and tire rotation/replacement, over and over. We don’t keep vehicles long enough to wear the battery packs out, but there have been no early failures of cells or entire packs. Brake replacement was dicy at the beginning because there’s a scantool-activated ‘learning mode’ you have to go through when changing pads so the regen braking knows where the friction material starts. The various shops had to update their scanners, farm out the job to dealers or, later, use an ‘unsupported method’ that involves killing battery power before brake jobs. Thirdly, and yes, anecdotes aren’t data, but I’ve been an auto mechanic for a long time, I’ve been ASE certified in hybrid repair since ASE began offering the certification, and I talk to a ton of mechanics regularly. We all pretty much agree that vehicles using Toyota’s Hybrid Drive system go forever. Even Fusions and Altimas(who license Toyota’s tech) have very few drivetrain problems. The mechanic I carpool with has a 2012 Prius with like 160K on it, he bought it because fellow dealership techs he worked with had such good things to say about them. And everybody’s not buying them for fun or status, that’s for drat sure. So, in closing, your screwy little charts showing FCA cars to be decent and Prius’s to be average in reliability can suck my greasy nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 03:48
|
|
