Archive for July, 2007

I drove 700 miles yesterday, and for the most part the trip was uneventful. But while driving around DC it became painfully obvious that most drivers in that part of the country (and probably most other parts as well) either don’t know or don’t care how to properly use the highways.

I’m speaking specifically about the common practice of sliding over into the left lane, and staying there, no matter what. Driving 700 miles, I wanted to get to my destination more quickly than most people apparently wanted to get to theirs. So I was doing a steady seven or so MPH over the limit. Nothing crazy, but enough to take an hour off my travel time.

Meanwhile, many of the people in the far left lane were going about the speed limit or a couple MPH to either side of it. As was the car to their right. And the car to the right of that car. Often all the way across four or more lanes. But sometimes with the far right lane empty. This behavior of picking a lane and sticking with it is actually recommended as a fuel-saving tip here.

Sorry, but this practice make no sense from any standpoint. I found myself using the far right lane to pass much more often than the far left lane. And this isn’t safe, because eventually there is someone in that far right lane using it as intended, to move slower than most other traffic. It also isn’t efficient, because rather than being able to maintain a constant speed I had to get on the brakes quite often, then get on the gas, then back on the brakes.

Why are people using the far left lane this way? Do they not know it’s supposed to be left unoccupied unless you need it to pass? Do they simply not want to have to change lanes to go around slower traffic, and thus put themselves where they won’t have to change lanes, no matter what it forces other drivers like myself to do? Do they feel that they’re traveling the perfect speed? Years ago in a performance at Carnegie Hall, George Carlin noted that, when you’re on the freeway, anyone who’s going slower than you are is an a-hole, and anyone going faster is an idiot. Or maybe they just want the feeling of having their own lane, as if Uncle Sam created an entire lane of highway, stretching miles and miles, just for them.

The in and outs of personal psychology aside, driving is most safe and efficient when everyone uses the rightmost lane they can at any given time. When I drive, no matter what speed I’m traveling, I drive in the far right lane whenever I can. I don’t feel I’m less of a person while doing so. If someone wants to pass me to the left, that’s fine with me. It’s not my job to slow them down for their own or anyone else’s good. Excessive speed wouldn’t even be so dangerous if everyone used the roads properly, as I understand they tend to be in Europe.

I haven’t been to Europe. But I have been to western Canada. There, the highways are often two-lanes, with side paved shoulders. Whenever I came up behind a slower vehicle, the driver would courteously pull onto the shoulder to permit me to pass. Something isn’t right when it’s safer and more efficient to drive on a two-lane-plus-shoulders rural highway than on an eight-lane divided superhighway.

You’ll find entire sites dedicated to this driving philosophy here and here. The latter site, whose mission is to get slow drivers out of the left lane so that faster “left lane drivers” can use it, even sells a copyrighted ”Move Over =>” sticker for the top of your car’s windshield. Effective, or so obnoxious that people who might otherwise have moved over won’t? A single quick flash of your high beams generally suffices, or at least should generally suffice, anyway. More worrisome, even the name of leftlanedrivers.org wrongly suggests that if you’re a fast driver, you have the right to permanently occupy the left lane. Sorry, but if the right lane is clear, you should be in it no matter how fast you’re traveling. There should be no “left lane drivers.” Everyone should be a right lane driver. So my personal position is much closer to that of the former site, driveleftpassright.com.

Clearly I’m far from the first person to recommend “drive right, pass left.” But if my experience yesterday is any indication, the word hasn’t gotten out nearly as well as it needs to. So here’s another shot at it.

Automotive News is reporting that, starting today, nearly all 2006 and newer Chrysler vehicles will come with a lifetime powertrain warranty. The only limitations mentioned are that the warranty is not transferable–I’ve never heard of a lifetime warranty that was, so no surprise there–and that the vehicle must have a free inspection performed every five years by the dealer.

As mentioned in an earlier editorial, Chrysler’s customer care hasn’t been the best. Hopefully this is a sign that, with the new ownership, they will become a much better company.

That editorial suggested that for their own good manufacturers should warranty major repairs for as long as customers today expect a car to not require them. Lifetime is longer than I proposed, but some transferability would also be nice. After all, others have five-year powertrain warranties that transfer; it appears that second owners will only get a three-year powertrain warranty on these Chryslers.

Still, an excellent step. Hopefully others do the same.

Years ago a friend of mine worked as a dealership service writer. Every once in a while they’d have a customer who insisted there was something wrong with a car, but the dealer could find nothing wrong. So they’d replace the muffler bearing. And if that didn’t work, the lubristat. Free of charge, of course. It was the automotive equivalent of a placebo, and just like a placebo it often did the trick.

Well, over at Ford F-150 forum FordF150.net I just learned of a site that offers muffler bearings and many other such devices (though, sadly, no lubristat): kalecoauto.com. If you know a bit about cars, it’s good for more than a few laughs.

If you visit automotive forums like I do, then you’re likely aware of the ways discussions can progress. So I had a few good laughs when a member of a Lexus IS forum posted “how many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb?”

It begins:

• 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
• 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
• 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
• 1 to move it to the Bodywork section
• 2 to argue then move it to the Lounge section
• 7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
• 5 to flame the spell checkers

And continues through:

• 4 to say “didn’t we go through this already a short time ago?”
• 13 to say “do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs”
• 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

So, if you visit forums often, be sure to check it out. Full post here.

The second follow-up went out on Tuesday, and so far 300 owners have responded, for a total of 2618 responses. This brings the response rate to 37 percent, which is a percent or two below previous quarters at this point. That said, I haven’t cleaned out bad email addresses yet this quarter, so it’ll probably end up about the same once I do.

Even if no additional responses were received, the August results would include 51 models, plus another 37 with asterisks. But there will be a few hundred more responses, which should increase these counts by about two and six, respectively. For one model, the 2007 Nissan Versa, there are already 90 responses.

Yesterday someone emailed me saying they could no longer participate because TrueDelta sends them far too many emails. I checked, and the reason for all of the emails was simple: they couldn’t stop participating, because they had not yet started!

Once someone responds, no follow-ups are sent to them. In months when no response is required, there’s a simple “check in” link in the email. Just click it and let the confirmation page load, and you’re done for the month.

For just about any car, if you visit forums you’ll find complaints about two things:

1. The tires
2. The audio system

Most recently, I’ve found claims that the optional Harman/Kardon system in the Mercedes-Benz GL 450 doesn’t sound nearly as good as the Bose systems in some competing vehicles. And complaints that the Bose system in the Infiniti M. A common catchphrase about the latter brand: “No highs, no lows, must be Bose.”

Are stock tires and audio systems really so bad? Or is the grass just always greener on the other side of the fence? I suspect the answer is “yes.” For both questions. In many cases tires and audio systems aren’t the best, and some people always want the best in one or both.

And because these are two of the easiest components to replace with aftermarket alternatives, many people will find themselves thinking about these readily available alternatives. Even if the replacement isn’t that much better, people always like things they personally selected better than things that were selected for them.

On the other hand, wheels are also easy to replace, but you won’t find many complaints about them. Same for wiper blades, but then wiper blades aren’t something many people will seek to develop expertise in. And part of the joy with tires and audio systems is developing and demonstrating expertise. 

I’ve certainly had my share of awful stock tires. Audio systems, though, I’m less picky about.

Recently I’ve come across threads on many forums (such as this one) where a member asks about a letter they received from their car dealer. In the letter, the dealer says it badly needs more used cars, perhaps even the specific car the person owns, and so will make it especially easy to trade the member’s current car in for a new one. I’ve received these letters myself. The question generally asked on the forums, “Is this for real?”

In a word, no. These are ads, pure and simple. The dealer has one goal in mind: to sell a car. They know that just about anyone would buy a new car TODAY if it would cost them little or nothing more than they’re already paying. They also know that the reason this doesn’t happen is that people fear–usually correctly–that they’ll get killed on the trade-in value.

So the dealers pretend that this isn’t the case, that they need used cars badly, and so will pay more than they usually would for them. They tell car owners what they know car owners most want to hear. Not because it’s true, but because it will bring people into the dealership with “new car” on the brain.

And once “new car” is on the brain, it can be hard to get off. Even if the terms aren’t as good as the letter (very vaguely) implied.

An increasing amount of attention is being focused on whiplash protection, and as a result manufacturers have been designing headrests that offer better protection when the car is rear-ended. This is a good thing, right? Well, not entirely. In some cases a safer headrest can be very uncomfortable.

To make the headrest safer, the manufacturer positions it further forward, sometimes so far forward that those with relatively vertical necks (like mine) find that they cannot hold their head where they normally would. Instead, their head is pressed forward.

I first encountered this issue when test driving the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu. I ended up removing the headrest and re-inserting it backwards. While this made sitting in the car far more bearable, no doubt safety was compromised. Since then I’ve read of similar problems with other cars.

To avoid buying a car you cannot then stand to drive, pay attention to the location of the headrest during the test drive. You might also want to try to passenger seat in a reclined position, if it is likely to be used this way on long trips.

How can this problem be avoided without compromising safety? Through “active headrests” that move forward automatically when the car is rear-ended. These work by connecting the headrest to a plate inside the seatback, with a pivot point on the rod that connects them. When a rear-end collision forces the driver’s body into the seatback, the pressure on the plate transfers through the lever to press the headrest forward. TrueDelta tracks this feature. So if you compare two cars and one has this feature while the other does not, you’ll find it in the results.

Well, it had to happen at some point: a usually reliable model requires multiple repair trips for one owner. In statistics, this is known as an “outlier.” The question for me: how to handle them?

Leaving outliers as they are can distort the results, especially with small sample sizes. In the most extreme case from the upcoming August results, I have 25 responses for one model. Twenty owners required no repairs. Four required one repair trip. And one required five repair trips. Simply analyzing these responses (weighted by the number of months reported on) yields a repair rate of 84 repair trips per 100 vehicles (0.84 per car). Since more vehicles require one repair trip than require two, and more require two than require three, and so forth, this is likely a distorted result. After all, none of the vehicles in the sample required two, three, or four repair trips. This suggests that a vehicle that requires five repair trips is rare, much rarer than one in 25 among the entire population.

Sometimes in statistical analysis the outliers are trimmed. They are simply eliminated from the sample, taking one from each end of the distribution to even things out. But, again because of the small sample sizes, especially when combined with the generally low frequency of repairs (most values are zeros), this would distort the result in the other direction.

The solution I have opted for is to adjust the highest value for each model to the next highest value plus one. This retains the vehicle in question as the least reliable in the sample, but smooths out the distribution such that it more resembles the distribution one would expect if surveying the entire population.

In the above case, this means that for the model in question we now have 20 zeros, four ones, and one two. This yields a repair rate of 56 repair trips per 100 vehicles (0.56 per car), which is very likely a more accurate result.

In the great majority of cases, no such adjustment is required. Out of the 81 models for which there are 15 or more responses, seven are affected, and in only three of these cases is the number of repair trips reduced by more than one. But in these three cases, I am much more comfortable with the result after the adjustment.

Another way to think of this is that there are lemons, and they can happen with every car. In each of the above cases, the value for a single problematic car is adjusted, for a total of three cars. When you have data on over 2,200 cars, are three going to be unusually unreliable? Sure. But should the models in question have their reported repair rates directly affected? In effect, they got struck by lightning. It could have been any model, it just happened to be them. It would not be valid to assume that the model in question was substantially less reliable owing to such a rare, chance event.

The adjustment yields an average that much better represents one’s likely repair trip rate when buying a car.

I’ve been noticing that many new designs start out with high repair rates, and then improve quickly. I saw this with the 2006 Civic and the 2007 Dodge Caliber. I’m seeing it again with the 2007 Nissan Versa. In the upcoming August results, the Versa’s repair rate will be much lower than it was in May. It’s the fastest improvement I’ve seen so far.

Which got me to thinking: both J.D. Power and Consumer Reports collect data in the late winter or spring. By this time, manufacturers will have already had time to fix many bugs with new models that were introduced early, during the previous winter or spring. As a result, I’d expect the first-year reliability stats of these models to be better, even much better, than they otherwise would be.

And what of new designs that were introduced in the late fall or early winter? The stats could well be worse than they’d otherwise be.

Since TrueDelta reports quarterly, it doesn’t matter when a new design is introduced. But for any manufacturer interested in boosting their scores on the other surveys, I’d introduce new designs in the spring. Sure, Consumer Reports might still publish a result for these models. But if the past is any indication, they’ll be so new and have so few miles on them that the resulting rating tends to be a good one.

What you don’t want to do is introduce a new design just a few months before these surveys take place. For then these surveys will catch the first batch or two of cars right after owners have had enough time to experience the initial wave of problems.