Bookmarking
Auto on Info pages
Home or
Site Layout or
Site Index or
Quick Jumps or
Search Engine DirectoryMini-Survey
Menu PageMini-Survey
No. 23: When a Big Three Manufacturer (Chrysler-Ford-General Motors) Raises or Lowers the
Reliability of Its Products, Is It Commendable or Reprehensible?
 |
|||||||||
| Links to the Mart | Links to the Mart | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Visitor support makes this site possible. Please shop at Amazon.com via Auto on Info. Thank you. | |||||||||
When a Big Three Manufacturer (Chrysler-Ford-General Motors) Raises or Lowers the Reliability of Its Products, Is It Commendable or Reprehensible?
Background
Auto on Info's April 2002 article entitled "By AOI's Recently Completed Auto Reliability Research for the Model Decade 1988 to 1997, Toyota Was the Guiding Star; Honda - A Falling Star; Subaru - the Rising Star; Nissan - Another Falling Star; Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Mitsubishi - Well Shattered Meteorites; and Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen - Well Buried Rocks from Times Past" notes that Ford Motor Company's Reliability Percentrank average rose .24 from 1988 to 1997, although its Reliability Grade, per both the High Standards and Exacting Standards, remained an F. There are two opposing views of this accomplishment. One is that it is commendable; the other is that it is reprehensible.
The view that Ford's raising its reliability average is commendable rests largely on the fact that more recent Ford owners need to make fewer repairs and, consequently, their standard of living and free time rise and their stress declines. The opposing view, that raising this average is reprehensible, follows from a more involved thought process that takes account of two additional observations. The first observation is that there was no apparent need for Ford to improve the relative reliability of its products. For example, Chrysler, which had a Reliability Percentrank average that declined by .11 from 1988 to 1997, is the only one of the Big Three manufacturers to maintain its new car market share from 1993 to the present. Other facts supporting the absence of need by any of the Big Three to improve product relative reliability may be found in "No Need to Compete: More Data Point to a Big Three Market Share That Is Well Insulated from the Rigors of Competition." The second observation is that higher reliability means fewer sales of replacement parts, lost corporate profits, and lower shareholder earnings. Combining the two observations, we have that management of Ford Motor Company, without apparent cause and for no apparent reason, gave away quite a chunk of shareholder earnings - for at least some and maybe by legal theory, a pretty reprehensible deed.
So what are your thoughts on this matter?
Queries
The queries for this mini-survey are:
Auto on Info Standings for Selected Search Phrases
Site Rank in Results for Search Phrase Auto Quality Information Site Rank in Results for Search Phrase Auto Reliability Information Site Rank in Results for Search Phrase Auto Durability Information Site Rank in Results for Search Phrase Auto Complaints Site Rank in Results for Search Phrase High Mileage Rosters First by Google from 772,000 results First by Google from 355,000 results First by Google from 117,000 results First by Google from 311,000 results First by Google from 1,710 results First by alltheweb from 2,806,418 results First by alltheweb from 416,178 results First by alltheweb from 54,017 results Fourth by alltheweb from 403,423 results First by alltheweb from 1,176 results Fourth by MSN Search from 857,935 results First by MSN Search from 141,674 results First by MSN Search from 28,424 results Tenth by MSN Search from 185,916 results First by MSN Search from 974 results Fourth by Ask Jeeves First by Ask Jeeves First by Ask Jeeves Sixth by Ask Jeeves First by Ask Jeeves Standings are as of 27/08/2002.
