What car should I buy?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

I am very careful to learn facts before concluding. As you learned in 2003 with Saddam's WMDs.

Being right once does not entitle you to a monopoly on truth. That'a a logical fallacy. I demonstrated that ten years ago; there was a month where every time you brought up aluminum tubes, I found a post on the Cellar where you were demonstrably and clearly wrong. I can do that again if you like, but apparently it had no bearing on you, so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.

In November 2010, the Safety Record reported on a recent NHTSA study for heavy trucks.

Trucks are not relevant to the subject at hand. Anyone but you can understand why numbers about ABS on trucks are not going to tell us much about ABS on cars.

Numerous studies included your numbers and then included other numbers you ignored.

Prove it. Post the studies that included "my" numbers from the 2009 IIHS study.

Why do you ignore what I said about ice when your own post was a reply (in oversized letters) to that simple sentence?

Ice was not relevant to the question at hand. It was a distraction by you.

Oversized letters became the first time you paid attention to numbers that were posted. You ignored the actual numbers until they were posted in large print. What does that tell us about your attention to facts?

Why do you think I'm angry when I post in large print? I'm not. I'm just trying to get through to you because you don't read anyone's posts. It worked! I've gotten through and given you the numbers that you pretend to care so dearly about... that you have previously ignored. Why did you ignore them before? Why, now, do you try to argue in circles away from them? ABS IS SAFER. But but but ice! But but but trucks! NO. ABS IS SAFER. 6 to 8% fewer crashes in cars and SUVs. THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. Why ignore them?

Emotional need to be right, no matter what, in the face of given facts. Being right is so important to you that you have held on dearly to the last time you were right, 11 years ago. But if you are honest, and unemotional, you know that has no bearing on numbers that exist and are presented today as evidence.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.

Now you've got it.

[Undertoad]

By the way... interesting, NY Times two months ago:

Japanese Autos Lose Ground in Consumer Reports' Reliability Ratings

Funny how times change innit? tw's favorite appliance is no longer Recommended:

The V-6-equipped Honda Accord and the Nissan Altima, no longer have the consumer advocacy publication’s coveted “Recommended” rating

Subie wins! With its full-time AWD? Impossible. Ford's complicated engines suck, and so does their in-car electronics. We never mention in-car electronics on the Cellar, except for my Ford Flex review, but this is something that cars are rated for now, and it's important. Oh and Lola, you may now buy a Dodge, but only a little one:

The 2014 Subaru Forester was the highest-scoring vehicle over all in predicted reliability. Worst-rated was the Ford C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid. The Dodge Dart 2-liter was the top domestic model.

Even Toy gets hit:

After performing poorly in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s new, more stringent small overlap front crash test, the Audi A4, the Toyota Camry, the Toyota RAV4 and the Toyota Prius V were also absent from the list.

The federal government did lose $10B on GM but it seems not for nothing -- surprise! GMC is now 9th on the list of automakers reliability. That's stunning to me, and I suppose, good news. Meanwhile Nissan fell to 22nd which is bad news.

[glatt]

I don't understand that NYT article. In post #3, I posted the actual charts from the 2014 Consumer Reports buyer's guide, and the Camry, for example, still has the check mark next to it, showing that CR recommends it.

(That buyers guide was delivered about a month ago, I think. This NYT article came out about a month prior to that.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Consumer Reports...

There’s a hard-earned perception that, in general, Japanese cars excel at consumer-focused virtues. If you look at our annual Brand Report Cards, you’ll find several Japanese brands top the list due to high average test scores and predicted reliability. But there have been several disappointing Japanese models lately.

These five cars score too low in our battery of more than 50 tests to qualify for a coveted Consumer Reports recommendation. In each case, they fell short of their potential and face much better competitors.

To earn a recommendation, a car must perform well in our tests, have average or better reliability, and perform adequately if included in a government or insurance industry crash test. While the spotlighted five cars missed the mark on the first criterion, the suggested alternatives all meet the standards to be Consumer Reports recommended. (Overall test scores are based on a 0-100 scale.)

The Los Angeles Times writes, "The magazine dumped some of its favorite vehicles — Toyota's Camry, RAV4 and Prius V — from its list of recommended cars because they scored poorly in an insurance industry crash test."

Toyota and its Lexus luxury brand took the two top spots in the reliability ratings. Acura, Audi, Infiniti, Volvo, GMC and Subaru were also top-ranked brands for reliability. The 2014 Subaru Forester earned the highest predicted reliability rating for a single vehicle, reports the Chicago Tribune.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't understand that NYT article.

There may be more to the story. A stuck accelerator problem (that was created many years before Toyoda took over Toyota) has now been analyzed by engineers.

Their rules were restricting. Engineers could not even take notes, pictures, or other written material from the room. For about one year, they entered a secure room to examine code that operated brakes, cruise control, and other relevant functions. Their report to the courts was a stunning admission of concepts that should not exist in real time software. And could explain why, in rare cases, an accelerator might lock to the floor.

This recent report may have something to do with Consumer Reports concern and reevaluation of some models.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

People buy cars for styling, more than any other single reason.

Which was also discussed previously in:

Concepts were defined by Daniel Kahneman who (I believe) won the 2002 Nobel Prize for his work on this topic. Kahneman defined two types of thinking. System one is intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion.

The concept applies even to gasoline. If the price of gasoline was so high, then why were big SUVs best sellers as gasoline prices sharply increased to above $3? If gas prices were high, then why were sales strongest with lowest mileage models?

If people really were concerned with gasoline prices, then why would people now buy engines that generate horsepower numbers also found in 60,000 pound and 80,000 pound 18 wheelers? If gasoline really was so expensive, then those grossly overpowered machines should not sell well.

A third example is discount gas stations. Some of the most expensive gasoline is sold in Wawa, Sheets, Hess, US Gas, BJs, and other discount stations. Price (posted at $3.40 per gallon) is actually $0.24 higher. But many do not seek facts. Some notice their car needs gas more often. But most only act on their feelings - system one thinking. Actual price for Hess gasoline is about $3.64 per gallon. Compare that price to superior gasolines sold in Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Amoco, or Texaco. If gasoline was so expensive, then why do so many pay highest prices?

Learning facts require an effort. Most instead use intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion. Many who buy BJ's gasoline never notice what should be obvious - it is one of the most expensive gasolines.

People's actions based only in feelings (what they drive, the selected engines, and what gasoline is purchases) demonstrate that gasoline prices are really quite low. A majority decide only using their feelings.

[lumberjim]

Wawa has the cheapest gas in my area. And they don't do that bullshit where they have one price for cash and another for credit. Today I filled up at 3.19 per gallon I used my credit card. There were two other stations with 3.19 posted, but you have to pay cash to get that price.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Wawa has the cheapest gas in my area. And they don't do that bullshit where they have one price for cash and another for credit.

To compare that to prices at other stations, well, you actually paid $3.42 per gallon. (Apparently you are buy gas in Jersey.) How much was Exxon or Shell?

Another way to learn its real cost is to calculate 'dollar per mile'. Either way, you paid for the most expensive gasoline at Wawa. Notice the crowds. A majority do not learn they are paying the highest price. If gasoline was actually expensive, then a majority would do simple calculations; then not use Wawa gas.

Why did GM require cars to be EPA mileage tested with Chevron? Mileage numbers are that significantly higher.

[lumberjim]

What are you saying? That they lie about their prices, or that the gas at other stations burns slower?

If gas is listed at 87 octane, isn't that regulated? Are the pumps not inspected by the state and certified? I see those little stickers on there that have annual updates. How do you conclude that the gas purchased at 3.19 actually cost me 3.42?

[lumberjim]

That's a screen shot from Waze. It's my favorite nav app. Tells you if there are cops ahead, predicts your route based on history, all that smart shit. Like gas listings in your area.
I sometimes go to citgo. Occasionally lukoil. I see on Waze that exxon was actually cheaper 3 days ago, but that station never seems to be open. There's a sunoco, but it's inconvenient pulling out after. Oh, I also use Coastal in Pennsauken a good bit. They usually are about the same as Wawa. And no credit card premium.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Probably because Chevron was the first to qualify as "Top Tier Gasoline" in 2004, now there are about 30 in the US. They don't get better mileage, they have more detergent(s) to keep crap from building in the motor, which eventually will affect emissions, mileage and performance.

Tom Magliozzi, co-host of NPR's weekly radio show, Car Talk, said that using top tier detergent gasoline is only critical on high-end vehicles. For other vehicles, he and another source said that periodic use of a concentrated engine cleaner every 100,000 miles will "often" clean out carbon buildup.
Magliozzi's co-host, Ray Magliozzi, said that in order to be sure of preventing buildup of fuel injectors and valves, motorists should use Top Tier gasoline "at least most of the time".

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

What are you saying? That they lie about their prices, or that the gas at other stations burns slower?

Wawa gasoline gets no additives necessary for serious mileage increases. (Ethanol and octane is irrelevant here.) They are selling on dollar per gallon; not dollar per mile. Nobody was lying. An informed consumer cares less about dollar per gallon. But most feel all gasoline in same rather than learn facts. An example of what Kahneman says.

All cars are equipped with devices (ie trip odometer) to learn this. Most everyone cannot be bothered because gasoline is so cheap.

Studies even decades ago noted these difference. One from BMW only listed five approved gasolines: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Texaco, and Amoco. It only reviewed national brands. Sunoco (a regional brand) may also have these additives. As previously noted, I am careful about accuracy before posting. I don't use Sunoco; so cannot confirm what is only a suspicion.

This summer's MPG numbers were 36 to 39 using only Shell and Exxon. On a Honda only rated 28 MPG highway.

When someone borrowed my car and filled with WaWa, mileage dropped to high 20s. It took four tanks of the 'good stuff' to restore my MPG.

Wawa did not lie. They count on consumers using 'system one' thinking. Even using an odometer is too much work. Presented is, to you, a hypothesis. For you to *know* means experimental evidence (numbers) is required. As I also needed before I could agree with those Exxon executives and BMW study.

Best gas price in that area (Route 70?) were Exxon near Ponzio's and a Shell on Admiral Wilson Blvd. My experience suggests many consecutive tanks are necessary to restore mileage to what is should be.

[lumberjim]

I would like to try and see if that made a diff for me, but my driving is so erratic, that I don't think I could accurately compare. Most days I make 2 2.4 mile trips to work and back, but then when I go see the kids, ill do 55 to 65 miles each way on the highways. The number of those trips varies widely.

Have you ever analyzed whether it's cost effective to use 89 or high test? Like, do you get better mpg with higher octane? And if so, is it worth the extra dough?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They don't get better mileage, they have more detergent(s) to keep crap from building in the motor,

Mobil (decades before it became Exxon) had a highest detergent gas. It was not on the approved BMW list. Another study noted excessive detergents in Mobil resulted in carbon build up on valve stems.

Nothing previously discussed detergents. Additives mean more gas burns productively in the engine.

One night twenty some years ago, a Mobil station was the only open station. Next day, I knew something was wrong. Numbers confirmed it. Next tanks were a pathetic 27 and 25 MPG. I knew exactly when it happened - right after filling up at that Mobil station. The dealer identified damaged fuel injectors. I paid nothing to replace $400 of injectors. Mileage restored to above 30 MPG.