Improviz

I made no mistake; you did. I cited a survey of thousands of owners. You are citing your own personal experience. And I am quoting you *directly*: YOU said previously, in this forum, that a sample size of one is invalid. You are a sample size of 1, maybe 1.5, but still not as valid as a sample size of thousands. And Consumer Reports' survey of thousands, which I will attach again, ranks BMW 30th out of 36th, only four slots ahead of Mercedes.

Because why? Because you said so? If you're going to challenge Consumer Reports' data, you're going to have to do better than that.

In what way is their methodology or data flawed? Your dismissing it as irrelavent simply because you don't like what it says won't cut it.

And wow, in one breath you claim that "one report does not mean anything", and then in the next breath you...why, you cite one report! Why am I not surprised?

False. BMW was NOT "much better than industry average". I've attached the results from their survey. Here are the problem rates for three years from the leader, Lexus, along with the average, BMW, and Mercedes:

Lexus = 1.39
BMW = 2.25
average = 2.37
Mercedes = 2.83

BMW barely beats the average, by 0.12 problems per car. Contrast this with the industry leader, Lexus, which beats the average by nearly ten times this amount.

And this is as measured over a three year period. So, per the report you recommended I consult, we see that over this three year period, a Mercedes will average a whopping 0.58 problems per car more than BMW, which boils down to an incredible 0.19 problems per year.

Wow. Cry me a river, dude.

Which is why you're using the JD Power report to support your argument (even though it does not), yes?

I did, and it shows that you're wrong. See analysis above, and the chart below.

No, you cannot. You are not The Final Word on this subject, although you would clearly like to be. But unless and until you can come up with some reason to doubt Consumer Reports' data other than you happen not to like what it says, you are doing nothing more than that which you usually do: blowing hot air, and dismissing facts with which you do not happen to agree.

But facts are stubborn things, and the Consumer Reports data shows that your assertion is wrong. Whether or not YOU happen to agree with what it says is irrelavent.

I knew seven people who smoked and didn't get cancer. Therefore, we can state with certainty that smoking does not cause cancer. Does the phrase "non sequitur" mean anything to you?

The fact is this: Consumer Reports and JD Power between them have thousands of datapoints, and neither of them illustrates a meaningful difference between BMW quality and Mercedes quality.

Amen.

krispykrme

I guess you haven't taken any statistics. Sample size of one? So when did 4 of my MB and 3 BMW gets merged into one?

Please take some statistics before you are making a fool out of your self.

It's funny how your own comment are coming back to bite your own rear. I was pointing out your fallacy in using one report to slam on BMW quality, when there are reports out there to prove other wise?

I am simply pointing out your mistakes. Let me ask you the same question now.

Are you going to question thousands of samples from JD power?
Like i said, you are the one that is slamming BMW quality from one car that you claimed your family owns, and one report from consumer report.

Where I can use at least two reports to back up my claims as well as my 7 data point.


It it so funny to see someone like you to post response like this.

Let's talk about some number should we?

The survey was conducted from sample size of 50,000 participant.

Does this mean that all brand has equal share in calculation of final industry average? (actually it does not).

The survey was conducted in conjunction with its market share. Hence, toyota/honda with their big vol and good performance, moved the average based on the market share down to industry average of 237.

If each brand has equal voice/share, the industry average would be 255 problem per car with std dev of 65.332 ( or 0.65 problem per vehicle).

However, since we do not know the actual market data being used, all we know that the average got moved down to 237. Hence it is safe to say that std. dev of the calculation done by JD power is also less. Probably in range of 0.6 per vehicle.

If you have no clue to what a normal distribution look like, you can look it up. The fact of matter is that MB average performance was about 1 std. dev worse from industry average. Which is quiet significant, while BMW is better by about 1/5 std deviation.

Now let's put this into perspective. Since this is a normal distribution we are talking about. Mean +/- one stand. dev is about 68% of total observation point. Also since this is normal distribution. 50% of data point will be better than industry average. In other words, MB is one stand. deviation worse than the mean. 50% (for companies with performance better than industry average)+34% MB is above the industry average. It is safe to conclude that 84% of the car sold in US has better long term quality than MB in 2002. While BMW's quality performance is significantly better at 45% (roughly).

See, this is what the numbers means.

If everything were so simple like your simple calculation, we would not need any quality control.

The fact is that based on simple statistics, you can see that MB's performance means that out of 100 cars sold in US, 84 cars has better long term reliability than it, while BMW has only about 45 cars.

It's all relative.

Like i said, take a class in statistics first before you start to talk.

My assertion is wrong? So you are questioning what JD power state is wrong as well?

My point is simple. You are using one report CR and one car to make a point. I am simply pointing out your blindess.

The fact is that I can use two seperate report (JD power long term vehicle depd. survey, initial quality survey, as well as my 7 data point) to prove that you are wrong.

Like i said one report does not mean anything. JD power associate report should be given at least equal weight in your discussion. However, you simply grab the best result to suite your discussion.

I am simply doing to same to **** you off and show why your comment is just as worthless as mine.

Too bad, I already show you why there is a significant difference. Please go take a class in basic statistics.

Marcus Frost

Posting my limited experience yet again.

Test drove E39 M5 and W210 E55 back to back. Bought W210.

Owned an E46 M3. No problems, great car, still not for me. No torque, raspy stock exhaust tone (and no, I didn't want to spend the money to fix it with aftermarket), necesitated being driven hard to enjoy, simply don't want to drive it hard that often - que W210's statement of having "effortless performance" - E46 M3 does not have it.

Not interested in E60 M5. No modability, not a track junkie, prefer low end torque, looks "meh"

Just my $.02

-m

jtc55

off topic- marcus pm sent

zoink

Ahhh.... statistics.... one of my favorite for its never-ending debates

But before you talk into the numbers and all statistics mumbo jumbo, let's see how the survey was conducted (you answer.... me? I'm too lazy to research):

Question #1: What's the definition of "problem"?
Engine problems are certainly deemed as problems. But how about electronic problems, suspension problems? How about all small and insignificant problems, like ashtray cannot open, emblem is off, light bulb is out in couple days? Are these considered as problems?

Question #2: How do they weight the problems?
Are engine problems weighted the same as light bulb problems? For consumers, the answer is NO, for sure (if yours is YES, you are ). If JD Powers and/or Consumer Reports say no, then how do they weight? Are they different?

If let's say, JD Powers weights engine problem to be 2 and light bulb problem to be 0.1 but Consumer Reports weight them to be 1.1 and 0.8, respectively, the end statistics could be totally different.

For example:
Let's say JD & Consumer Reports use exactly the same sample (down to individual) but different weights:

Car A:
Sample Size: 100
Reported Engine Problems: 3
Reported Light Bulb Problems: 48
Reported Both: None (just for simplicity)

JD: (((3/100)*2)+((48/100)*0.1)) / 2.1 = 5.14% (5.14 problems per car)
CR: (((3/100)*1.1) + ((48/100)*0.8)) / 1.9 = 21.95% (21.95 problems per car)

Car B:
Sample Size: 100
Reported Engine Problems: 5
Reported Light Bulb Problems: 32
JD: 11.05%
CR: 19.26%

----> JD says Car A is better than Car B but CR says otherwise. Also note how far the difference in the "problems per car" for one specific car.

Question #3: What's the sample used?
Consumer Reports seem to use MY 2002 cars. Is JD Powers using the same? We all know the company could change. Let's use Hyundai as an example. We know Hyundai's quality improves a lot in the last couple years (not from my experience but from a lot of company review - if this is not true, let's assume it's true). If let's say one survey measures 1995 Hyundai cars vs. another survey that measures 2003 Hyundai. The results may phenomenally different. Likewise, BMW and MB could be very different.

So... if JD Powers and Consumer Reports use different model year, the results may not even be comparable.

Question #4: How did they select the sample?
Not b/c I question their validity (boy, they must have tons of PhD's in Statistics) but b/c of the time frame and spectrum. Do they select the sample at the same time? How do they normalize it? Any biases b/c of economy at that time? Do they oversample some manufacturers and undersample others? If so, how much over/undersample? Too much undersampling may mislead.

Question #5: What's the observation window?
Consumer Reports use 3-year window. How about JD Powers? Did they just use MY2004 cars and observe the problems occur in the 1st year? If so, the surveys are different and not comparable.

My conclusion:
It's hard to compare the statistics between two surveys w/o good understanding what's behind them. The survey does not even include subjective opinions about the cars themselves, the service and consumers' experiences that are not directly related to the car itself.

Put it this way.... using the following example, which car would you be likely to badmouth / complain about?
- Car A: Got 3 problems in 1 year but the shop always takes your complaints and do what you want promptly and always makes you happy. They even give you a more expensive loaner car.
- Car B: Got 1 electronic problem but the shop is such a pain in the a$$. They even blame it on you... saying the problem is not manufacturing defect but b/c of the way you drive the car. They don't even give you a loaner and take forever to fix.

I'm sure you pick Car B. Car A's would have significantly higher customer satisfaction and possibly better quality reports. Why? It's human nature... always be on the side where they are made very happy.

So... to conclude... it's up to a consumer to interpret the results:
- How much better is better? Is additional chance (not certainty) of having 1 more problem a year bad or acceptable?
- What's the relevance of MY2002 vs. MY 2005/6 (if one wants to buy a new car)?

And w/o knowing all of the above, your arguments may be pointless. Yet, they are fun to read

krispykrme

I agree that's why both my comment and improviz comment are point less other than I do have 7 data points from my own experience to state that my perception that MB quality blows.

1. We never know what both JD power and Consumer report definition of problems.

2. Don't know. Since we were never told of how each define the problem in the 1st place, however it is suffice to determine from the JD power survey that some kind of weight based on volume was used as the mean has changed.

3. This I can answer. As both JD power and Consumer report both states 2002 models car were used in compiling the result. We have to assume that the sample is taken from the same population based on the comment above.

4. I think this has more to do how they define problems and weight each manufacturer has in the survey.

5. This is same as question 3, and both are reviewing 2002 models for long term survey.

So what can we deduct thus far.

1. Target population is same (2002 model years).
2. Sampling could be different due to weight given to each manufacturer.
3. problem definition could be different.

That's why during my initial response to Improviz was that to base comment on one car he claims that his family owns and one report is blind. Because i could pull another report to show other wise.

BTW, we have not yet discussed classification and host of other things that you can influence the outcome of report.

Then again, what do i know, since i am just a dumb useless engineer.

zoink

Subjectivity is the spice for all excitement in arguments - as long as you can maintain their healthiness

And subjectivity is indeed the source of your arguments and Improviz's arguments. You use your experiences w/ you 7 cars and weight them quite big. So does Improviz.... You say the statistics difference in CR & JD is significant but Improviz doesn't agree....

I also weight my experience and close friend's and relatives' experiences quite high... I lost my faith to MB quite completely when I got a lemon '03 E55 - which I felt could kill me sooner or later if I drive fast when it fails - and had to go through hell to get the dealer buy it back in FULL price - they initially wanted to deduct depreciation

But thanks to my W210 E55 that is could be said trouble free... I still have faith in MB.

I myself considered a used E39 M5 for my fun car after totaling my '02 540i. But wife would like to enjoy the car also (she cannot drive stick ) so we decided to get Cayenne instead (not as fun but more useful for hauling big stuff ).

PS: Dumb useless engineer but could afford to buy cars like E55's & M5's? Man... where do you work? I'd like to work there j/k

Improviz

I have. Statistics and Stochastics. And as I pointed out before: your individual experience does not outweigh the samples taken by Consumer Reports, OR by JD Power.

Ah, cheap debate tactic: turn it around. I wasn't using it to slam BMW quality; I was using it to illustrate that the quality of the BMW brand is NOT appreciably higher than that of BMW, and the data shows this clearly, ergo that your assertion of vastly superior BMW quality is prima facie false, like much of your posts. Because, you see, I've seen you here day in, day out, insulting Mercedes, its owners, and pretty much anyone who dares to question your monumental arrogance, *and* making ignorant statements about the relative reliability of both brands when the data clearly show otherwise.

And so, I responded, not to "slam" BMWs, but to respond to YOUR continued slamming of Mercedes. A nice, lame attempt to turn things around, but I'm not about to let it slide...it was you who cast the first stone, and who have resorted to your time-tested techniques of twisting, ducking, dodging, and ad hominem...

But you aren't here for any other reason than to troll, argue, and insult Mercedes and its owners, so why should anyone be surprised?

Now who is being a fool? I not only didn't question them, I cited them, and gave you a nice, pretty scanned image of them, in this post. You might try looking up a few messages there, sparky.... But then, comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point.

Oh, and are you going to question thousands of samples from Consumer Reports? No, you'll simply hypocritically ignore them, because they don't support your argument.

So, in your paranoid little fantasy land, your coming here day in, and day out insinuating that Mercedes are all junk, and that because you, personally, have had issues with your Mercedes constitutes sound analysis, while my stating that I, personally, have had issues with mine constitutes "slamming BMWs".

Let's repeat this:

You come in and cite a report, and say that you've had problems with Mercedes. This constitutes an analysis to you.

When I come in and quote from the report you cite, cite another report, and say that I've had problems with BMW, this is "slamming".

Wow, those are some good drugs you're taking there, dude....or perhaps it's early Alzheimer's from the clogged arteries.

Your so-called seven data points are worthless, because you are clearly here for one and only one reason: to slam the brand of Mercedes. It is all you do, in post after post. And the report you cite does not back up your contention that BMW's quality is far, far superior to that of Mercedes.

As to your pseudo-analysis, you'll be needing to provide more than your opinion of what the actual standard deviation is. Do you have the actual Mercedes sample size? The actual BMW? The actual for all of the other cars? No? So how did you arrive at your guess for the standard devation? A guess? Fine. But I'll take data...and while your calculation of the average was close for the data set shown (it is actually 254, not 255; try taking out the average next time you calculate it, Einstein), without the weighting, you can't make a statement of the std dev with any certainty. But Consumer Reports can, and I'll be happy to provide it to you at the end of this post.

And again: you ignore the Consumer Reports data, and concentrate only on the one which is favorable to you. No comment from you whatsoever on the FACT that BMW was rated 30/36 in Consumer Reports...oh, no, because that doesn't support your claim, right?

My point is simple. You are using one report, JD Power, and a handful of cars to make a point. I am simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

Oh, and I have a second point: I actually used two reports, JD Power, to make my point, but you're too blind to bother and read my posts....

No, you cannot. Again: you are simply ignoring the Consumer Reports data, because it does not support your foregone conclusion. But you can't do this. The data is there, it is valid, and it plainly shows that your assertion is wrong.

If you have any scientifically valid reason why:

1) we should discard the data from Consumer Reports;

2) we should consider BMW's JD Power defect rate of 2.25 cars over three years to be fantastic, but Mercedes' JD Power defect rate of 2.83 over three years to be lousy;

Then provide it.

Even if your stupid guess at a standard deviation is accurate, the difference is only 0.58 defects over three years. The difference between your beloved BMW and Lexus is over TWICE that. So if you're oh so concerned about quality, why don't you drive a Lexus?

So why do you repeatedly cite one report, the JD power report, hypocrite?

This is perhaps the ultimate case of pot/kettle (or more accurately, kettle/pot, as I care enough about my health and my family to maintain a healthy lifestyle, though that's beside the point). And I said before; I not only gave it equal weight, I cited it in my post, and provided a scanned image of their results. I suggest you pull your head out of your fat ***, then go back and read my posts again.

Now then, here is some more data from Consumer Reports for you. They, you see, actually know their own weighting data, standard deviations, etc, and they are also thoughtful enough to calculate an average repair rate, and provide for each car a number of how much above/below the industry average the car's repair rates. The following might interest you:


BMW 3 Series: reliability 10% below average
BMW 5 Series: reliability 45% below average
BMW 7 Series: reliability 108% below average
BMW Z4: reliability 40% below average
BMW X5: reliability 35% below average

Wow. Yup, I see what you mean: if quality is at the top of your list...BMW are definitely the cars for you. crazy: crazy: crazy:

Oh, and then there's this page: <=click here!!: a list, maintained by BMW M3 owners and begun in response to BMW's refusal to honor their warranty when these owners' engines blew.

Yes, sparky, that's right: over 130 documented blown blown engines on BMW M3s, on a page set up by BMW M3 owners in desperation after BMW refused to repair their blown engines...could you be so kind as to point me to the blown Mercedes engines page for any of the current or past models?

Didn't think so.

RezF

I'm not sure this chart is meant to be interpreted the way you are looking at it. Yeah, BMW is 0.12 problems ahead of industry average, but you are just looking at these numbers in a vacuum and missing the significance of the chart. for example:

1) BMW is second to Porsche in leading European auto manufacturers with least problems.
2) BMW is in the Top quartile of auto companies, while Mercedes is in the BOTTOM Quartile of manufacturers.
3) WHY is MB in the Bottom quarter of the chart? Why is a brand that was so broadly respected been relegated in quality to the level of Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Daewoo, etc.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT trolling here against Mercedes. I am just pissed off that MB has slipped so much and doesn't seem to give a sh$t about it or its customers

Improviz

The data show what the data show....and one thing they show is that the defect rate difference between these two brands is, on average, about 0.58 defects/car as measured over a three year period.

The question is: is this significant enough to argue that one car is vastly superior to the other in quality, particularly when Consumer Reports' surveys show a much smaller difference between the two brands? I certainly wouldn't jump ship over 0.58 average defects over three years, but ymmv....

And this, of course, assumes one should just ignore the Consumer Reports data, which puts both brands near the bottom of the list....

Edited after you added your disclaimer: I agree with you, with one addition: I personally believe that BOTH Mercedes and BMW (and Audi for that matter, just to round out the major German sedan manufacturers) have a long ways to go in the quality department. But having owned all three, I can tell you that NONE of these brands are standouts in the reliability department.

RezF

I tried to analyze the second chart, but it is missing far too many valuable variables to decipher properly. From what I can see, they rank these companies by their "median", where perhaps "mean" is a better representation of the "average" value.
For BMW, the values above the median (closer to 0) are clustered closely to one another (evidenced by the shorter line). This means if they computed the "mean", the number would have been higher and hence the ranking may have been better. Similarly, looking at the MB data, the values BELOW (less than) the median are clustered closer to one another as compared to the data above the median; therefore, if they had computed the "mean", this number would have been even lower than the median, putting MB in an even lower ranking.

Can't argue against that!

krispykrme

why are you keeping on proving your short coming?

1. The fact is that you don't have enough statistical background to comprehend what you are talking about. Why does 7 cars equals sample size of one?

2. Obviously you don't bother to read. I stated it clearly, your point based on one report (see your 1st post) that consumer report did that BMW quality is poor is wrong. It is like using sample size of one.

Obviously you can't read nor possess the statistical skills to make sense what you are talking about.

No, the point is that you have no clue. You simply don't understand the importance of statistical control. The simple number means nothing until you put into context.

Simply put by using basic statistics, MB's longer term depd. is one standard deviation off the mean, which means out of 100 cars sold in US in 2002, there are 83 cars with better longer term dep. then MB. Statistics does not lie.

Data shows what? Shows that you don't have the statistical knowlege to interpret data?

Like i said, your comment was based on one report and one car you claim to have. I simply proved your fallacy in engaging in this argument.


Continous slam of MB? If MB are so trouble free then there wouldn't be a reason for me to tell the truth.

THE FACT OF MATTER IS THAT ALL MY MB HAS QUALITY ISSUES AND IS NOT ISOLATED TO ONE SPECIFICAL PRODUCT.

who is twisting, and dodging. I have not seen any kind of statistical rebuttal to my argument. Instead, all i see is name calling. If you have nothing better to say or skills to repsond, then shut up.

You simply can accept the fact that MB no longer makes a reliable product and is simply acting like a lemming that is following the leader blindly into depth of ocean.

Like i said, all my service record can be found on MB's data base. Heck, someone here even checked into that and was amazed at the crap that I have.

Truth hurts. Simple as that. I never stated my BMW are perfect, because it is not. However, based on my 7 cars i can tell you that DCX by far is worse in my experience.

People are only insulted when they are being shown they lack knowledge or ability to conduct an intelligent conversation (which you and some other had clearly demonstrated time after time).

Look at yourself. You are the one who is ignoring the 50k samples done by JD power on the 2002 model long term survey.

It is so funny to me to see you keep on making argument to bring out your short coming.

Did i ignore them? No. I simply use JD power associate and apply some basic statistics to show you how different report will bring out different meaning. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand it.




Like i said, you have no clue. 7 data point is 7 data point. My opinion has nothing to do as poor performance by DCX on my cars. I did not did poor job in desiging the SBC that would render brake totally useless that needs two recalls. Nor i assembled a car that has tail lights falls off it.

Funny thing is that my report and basic statistics more than back up what I claim.

Like i said, go buy yourself a basic statistics book and learn for once in your life.

The simple fact is that out of 100 cars sold in 2002, 83 cars has better long term reliability then MB, while only 45 cars are better than BMW. Simply as that. I have yet to see any kind of statistical rebuttal from you except heater word and totally clueless response.


Mean has already shifted toward upper echeleon or toward left on the distribution curve, and simply put one can deduct that weight was given into figuring out the industrial average.

Then again, it is more than obvious that you don't have any background in mathmatics.

I will save you the trouble.

Since we know that the range is fixed between low of lexus and worst of kia at 397. We know that majority of data points must be within this range. Of course there will be data points either on the way higher or way lower.

If each manufacturer has equal voice or share, than the median=mean at 255 rounded. And we can calculate standard deviation to be 65. what ever. Or 0.65 per vehicle. The fact is the industry average (i.e. the true mean) is now toward left of median point (based on the number of manufacturer represented). Also that the quality survey like any unbiased survey should yield a normal distribution. We can now conlude that the normal distribution curve is actually more tighter. Since standard deviation measure the dispersion of data points around mean, hence due to a much tighter normal distribution curve, the dispersion around the mean is tighter. (there is not shifting or range, but due to weight that toyota/honda has, the data points are now more clustered together). Hence you can assume that std. dev with weighted average that JD power use is going to be less than std. dev calculated using mean of 255. Hence my assumption is more than correct. You are dead wrong in your assertion.

Then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

Who is ignoring what? What makes consumer report data more correct and truthful than JD power.

My post was simply aimed at pointing your fallacy. Why do I need to explain consumer report's data.

MY POINT IS SIMPLE. YOU CAN USE CONSUMER REPORT TO MAKE A CLAIM. I CAN USE ANOTHER INDEP. REPORT TO REFUTE YOUR CLAIM AND PROVE YOU ARE WRONG. (WHICH I SUCESSFULLY DID).

Again, your comment has come back to bite you in the rear. Remember 1st rule of disapproving a statement is to find a counter example which i did. Then again, I don't think you have the necessary training in reasoning.


I guess some people just never learned to read. My post is simply using your own method to prove your are wrong. You are the 1st to use one report and one car to make a point. While I used two reports, and 7 cars to make my counter argument to prove you wrong.

WHICH PART OF THIS CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? My post is simply using your own method of argument to prove how dumb your comment and argument were, and you simply are keeping making fool out of yourself.


1. Where did i say we can discard the data from consumer report? You are the one that started all claims based on one consumer report. I simply used your method to make a statement that proves you wrong. You are just to dumb to realize it.

2. I already showed you the statistical background on this. Simply put you can't dispute the fact that MB's quality performance is about 1 std. deviation worse than industry average. And by simple distribution curve, it comes out to be 84% worse than all car sold in US in 2002.

Then again, i find it stupid to argue with someone that has not statistical skills what so ever.

Stop running with tail between your legs. We are simply discussing the quality difference between MB and BMW, there is no need to bring in lexus into this discussion. And same argument can be applied to you, your beloved mercedes is actual 2.5 std deviation worse than Lexus, while BMW is about 1.5. In other words, your beloved MB still fared far worse than BMW did. BY two standard deviation is about 97.5% (50%+47.5%). In other words, in 2002 97.5% of the time, Lexus has better long term dep than MB. Ouch!

See, numbers can be interpreted easily.

Again, you are setting yourself up quiet easily. I got two recall notices on SBC on each of my W211. Which according to MB will cause total loss of brakes on the W211. Compare BMW bearing issues on certain batch of 2002 M3 with bad bear rod, I think there are more W211 with bad SBC that were produced between 2003 to 2005 than there are certain batch of M3 produced in 2002. (Last time i check, M3 is produced in far less qty than W211)

So which is more dangerous. Driving high speed only to realize that you don't have control over your brake or a blown engine in which you can still stop. I think the answer is more than clear.

It's funny to me to keep on seeing you proving yourself wrong time after time again. I am just having a great time using your own method of arguing to prove how ridiculous your claims are.

BTW, i am still waiting to see a statistical rebuttal as well as rebuttal on the dangerous loss of brake on W211 and loss of engine on M3. Also, care to bring up how many W211 were effected by SBC recall vs M3 failed bearing rod?

In addition, I have stated it clearly. BMW service sucks and MB has great service. Your post stating that BMW trying to place blame on the M3 failure on owners further strengthen my argument on BMW service.

See you can't win. Because you simply don't have open mind and lack the statistical skills to interpret numbers.

Numbers don't lie but it is people who has skills to manipulate/interpret it that makes it useful or make a good story out of it. My response on this sujbect is simply to **** you off on the ability to use statistic to interpret numbers and use the same method you use to prove your original claim is wrong.

krispykrme

Based on statistics, the number is significant.

No one can draw conclusion by simply looking at difference. For example, assume that your GPA average is 0. and my GPA is 4. The difference is 4. But what does 4 mean? If you don't applie statistics to find out relative meaning, the difference mean nothing.

Simple as that.

Each test are done indep. Hence you can't compare two report. Consumer report means nothing toward JD power report, and JD power report means nothing to consumer report. Because they are ind. events.

You can make all the claim you want based on consumer report, i can make all the claims on JD power.

Which means your original statement plus my statement complete fallacy except I had the last laugh in using your own method to prove you wrong. That feels great.

VelocitE55

[QUOTE=krispykrme]
See you can't win. Because you simply don't have open mind and lack the statistical skills to interpret numbers.QUOTE]

Winning an argument on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics...at the end of the day, you're still a retard.

Improviz

But I've got better things to do than respond point by point to an idiotic, childish rant, so I'll respond to the main idiotic points:

The fact is, you have absolutely no idea what background what background I do, or do not, have in statistics, ergo your statement is a lie. Which pretty much gives people a great idea of where you're coming from, unless of course you could produce my college transcript.

The second fact is, I have a Masters' Degree in Electrical Engineering, with an emphasis on communication theory, which if you weren't such an ignorant dolt, you would realize involves heavy study of statistics, and stochastics.

But you are an ignorant dolt, and hurl out stupid, childish attacks on people's educational background without knowing what it is. Way to go, fatty.

As to whether you've owned one, two, or a dozen of the cars in question, I already addressed this: I know seven smokers who have not had cancer. Therefore, smoking does not cause cancer.

Now, if you weren't too stupid to understand a simple analogy, you'd understand that what I'm saying is that even if you have owned seven cars, well whoop-de-fvking do; this is a statistically insignificant sample when stacked against the sample sizes of JD Power, which btw receives funds from the Auto industry, and Consumer Reports, which btw does not.

As to your pseudo analysis: wow. You can actually read numbers off a graph, plug them into an Excel spreadsheet, and use the AVG and STDEV functions, then tell me what a standard deviation means in a gaussian distribution. Kudos to you...but as you correctly (for a change) pointed out, the mean that JD Power provides does not match yours. Which means that they're weighting the data. And since you cannot provide the data weighting they're using, you have no idea what the TRUE standard deviation is, and so you, by your own admission, guessed.

Well, guess what, fatty: I'm not prepared to accept the guess of a fat, trolling piece of **** like you as gospel.

Next, you repeat the lie (and it is now officially a lie, as I pointed it out to you in my previous post) that I am "ignoring the JD Power data".

Oh, yeah, fatty, I'm ignoring it....which is why I took the trouble to scan it in, and post it for your stupid, ignorant, fat ugly ***, HERE, DUMMY:

Are you really that stupid? I guess you must be....this makes three times now...

Another lie is that I said Mercedes are reliable. I did not, and never have, made such a statement over the course of this thread. If you have any instance of my so stating, provide it. You can't, because it's a bloody lie.

What I DID say is that BMW's reliability is ALSO poor. And the Consumer Reports data shows this.

And another instance of your being unable to comprehend what was plainly written is your rehashing of your stupid standard deviation ploy. The problem is, fat man, that you are basing this on an average of averages, as if Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Kia, Chevrolet, and all the rest of them sold the exact same number of cars.

But this simply isn't true. And so you cannot simply plug the defect rates for these cars in and grind out a standard deviation that's spot on. The calculated one is off the mark...by how much, we simply don't know, but the point remains that unless you have this data, you're producing a guess.

And I don't work with guesses, particularly those of people who are too fvking stupid to even read what I wrote.

Now on the other hand, we DO have the Consumer Reports data available, for each of the BMW model lineup. And what does it show? Why, it shows the following, which of course you conveniently ignore, yet again:


BMW 3 Series: reliability 10% below average
BMW 5 Series: reliability 45% below average
BMW 7 Series: reliability 108% below average
BMW Z4: reliability 40% below average
BMW X5: reliability 35% below average

So rather than address this data, which was compiled with KNOWN data points, you simply proceed with your guess at the standard deviation. But, fat man, I don't work with guesses. And yes, you are ignoring, and have repeatedly refused to address, the Consumer Reports data.

But here we have data, taken from Consumer Reports, which blatantly contradicts your claim. If, as you claim, only 45/100 cars sold were better than BMW, then could you please explain how it is possible for Consumer Reports to:

1) rank them 30th out of 35 manufacturers in quality;
2) the numbers above (and below; I produced them twice here as a reminder that you're continually ignoring them)?

Because to me, it sure seems like you're ignoring the independent Consumer Reports data, and leaning on the industry-funded JD Power. JD Power, you see, is a consulting firm, which receives money from the auto industry. Consumer Reports receives no outside advertising dollars, and is funded entirely by subscribers.

And so in whose data do you put the most stock? Why, JD Power, of course.

So, just for grins, I went to the JD Power site, and did a little comparison: I compared a 2005 BMW 5 Series to a 2005 Buick Century and a 2005 Pontiac Grand Prix. Since you are such a huge fan of JD Power and have such absolute confidence in their data collection and analysis skills, I'm sure that you'll take no issue with their results. Well, their results are in, and I've attached them. Enjoy.

Last laughable bit: No you didn't. My claim was that BMW's reliability is also poor, and the Consumer Reports data show that it is. How does JD Power data prove Consumer Reports data "wrong", fatty?

Answer: it doesn't.

Well, then we're even; I'm still waiting to see a rebuttal to the Consumer Reports data. You have provided none, only using your self-admitted guess at a standard deviation from one dataset as if God himself had written it in stone...but a guess from a fat blowhard is not Gospel to me, krispy.

Consumer Reports' data again, so you can ignore it again:


BMW 3 Series: reliability 10% below average
BMW 5 Series: reliability 45% below average
BMW 7 Series: reliability 108% below average
BMW Z4: reliability 40% below average
BMW X5: reliability 35% below average

Rebut that.

And lastly, you finish up with recall data about Mercedes, again arguing like an idiot as if I'm trying to claim that Mercedes is the paragon of reliability; I am not, and if you could read with any level of comprehension, you would know that I am not. What I *am* arguing is that BMW is not significantly more reliable than Mercedes, and is NOT one of the more reliable brands out there.

This, you see, is NOT the same as saying "Mercedes is one of the most reliabie brands on the road". I know, I know, it's tough, but please...try again. And concentrate on rebutting that which I am actually arguing, rather than that which you imagine I'm arguing.

Improviz

No, based upon statistics, the distribution is tight. And how significant a difference 0.19 problems per year is over three years is a matter of subjective opinion.

Now, I know that you think your opinion is The Final Word, fatty, but it isn't. And whether or not 0.19 problems per year over three years is significant is up to the consumer.

Not to you; to you, the Consumer Reports data is to be ignored, but the JD Power is gospel.

To me, they're both valid, although I do put more stock in CU as they are NOT funded by industry, as is JD Power.

Yes, and you can claim that Santa Claus exists as well, but you need to prove it. And your methodology is not sound.

I don't know...it seems as though you're wasting quite a bit more time on this than I, but whatever floats your boat, fatty!

VelocitE55

Impro, you are an asset to MBWorld man! Everytime you own someone, I laugh myself into tears!

vixapphire

Quote:
Originally Posted by Improviz
I have. Statistics and Stochastics. And as I pointed out before: your individual experience does not outweigh the samples taken by Consumer Reports, OR by JD Power.
:endquote


All I can say about this thread anymore is that it's "stochastic on stupid", to borrow a phrase from Gen. Honore.

Jon200

thats shocking

mhh

Wow, it's a while since I visited here. Things seem to have gone downhill in a big way. I guess the mods are on vacation!

Where do the regular enthusiasts hang out now?

MBAMGPWR

My brain hurts...

For those who don't want to read all that stuff, here's the summary:

Improviz: provided statistics and retorts to krispykrme's retarded comments on quality.
krispykrme: ate a lot of donuts while reading Improviz's posts.
Improviz: continued the ownage into the 2nd page.
krispykrme: typed broken English the entire way through because he was so pissed he was losing the argument.
Improviz: still continued to own donut-boy.
kirspykrme: still pissed at ownage.

To be continued...

MBAMGPWR

At the strip clubs, bro. Where else?

Come on, it's all fun & games. Don't take this so seriously my Aussie friend. I did like your opinion on the new M5 and would like to test one myself before I give my final opinion. It's just hard to drive something I'm not attracted to (I guess that's the same with women too). :p

skratch77

and another thread gone to ****.What the hell does any of the stuff you two are *****ing over have to do with passing on a m5

do us all a favor and delete your posts in here and start a new thread.

MikeHK

Talk about ownage, I think the MBworld mighty Improviz should go rescue his soul mate M5killer in the other thread

https://mbworld.org/forums/deleted-threads/121517-evosport-s-response.html

with his faulty logic which in some way alike to his buddy M5killer to me.

MBAMGPWR

This is the old M5 vs. E55 crap which most people could care less about. Every thread that's related to the M5 is defended by krispykrme while the offense is commanded by Improviz...same old, same old.

The M5KILLER vs. EVO stuff is a bit more serious. I think you should just mind your own when it comes to that topic.