|2nd June 2007, 10:05||#61|
Senior - BHPian
Join Date: Apr 2004
Thanked: 16 Times
Mercedes was going through a bad patch from 1998 to 2005.i accept that.with the latest cars they have come back,but people are still trying to put them down.
this is what i tried to prove,by posting that result from the UK,but according to people that is not valid since US and UK are different?How may i ask?All cars to US except the ML and GL are sent from Germany.
also i tried to reason that since they make more inovations they are likely to suffer more issues because of unknown technology,is that wrong?
this is all i meant,if u understand take it or else leave it.i'm not going to respond futher.
Last edited by merve_extreme : 2nd June 2007 at 10:06.
|2nd June 2007, 10:52||#62|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Thanked: 6 Times
Dude, you are contradicting yourself in the same post. Your arguement all along has been that innovations result in low reliability because its... well, innovation**. Now you say that Merc went through a bad patch and hence their reliability was low and now they are bouncing back. In other words, innovation has nothing to do with reliability. Low reliability is a result of bad build quality. Why is it so hard to accept for you? Even Merc executives agree that they have quality issues and they worked on improving their procedures.
** whatever happened to QC? There are gazillion futuristic products in laboratories and they dont see the light of day because of production issues aka reliability problems.
PS: I would like to know how many Mercs you owned, those built between 1995 and 2005.
|2nd June 2007, 10:56||#63|
Senior - BHPian
Join Date: Mar 2007
Thanked: 150 Times
This thread is about reliability not innovation. For that matter, what is meant by innovation. From wikipedia, the classic definitions of innovation include:
Of course, nothing is perfect in this world including cars, and that is Toyota and others constantly improve (as can be seen by comparing products of a decade old). All cars give problems including Toyota, but Japs give lesser problems and lower costs per mile than others. Toyota and honda are more likely to make a better and more reliable car at the same cost than others. What else could most rational consumers want. Of course, buying a more unreliable but great looking European cars is also rational, because many customers have made tradeoffs. Consumers buying Japs consider reliability, FE, and feature essentiality more important than `looks'. Now who is in the majority (looks vs. reliability) can be gauged from sales, and no point repeating the sales figures again to prove that reliability at acceptably lower cost (which is innovation if not what) wins hands down.