Quote:
MAVERICK said:
Quote:
VKSF said:
and have never gained sense that Lexus is particularly impressive from an active/passive safety standpoint.....
Perhaps it is time to revise that sense. I am astonished that prior to the 1998 DC merger, MB passive crash safety had already fallen:
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=3&id2=18
http://www.iihs.org/news/1999/iihs_news_120899.pdf
Quote:
My anecdotal sense today is that MB/P/F are all roughly similar in having superb quality/reliability.
If MB/P/F are presently similar in passive safety, and the independent results from the IIHS and ENCAP are reliable showing MB passive safety to be inferior to Lexus, I sense MB/P/F customers are getting less than they bargained:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=15
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=10
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=3&id2=89
Quote:
Would suspect the cust svc of the one-off, price-shopping cust (who prob buys a new car only every 5-7 yrs anyway) will be different from that of cust who has consolidated his purchasing to 2-3 brands and has strong relationships w/relevant dealers...and who seems to know/refer many of the dealer's other major repeat custs.....Business/Cust Svc 101
I would suspect both frequent and infrequent customers would expect premium quality if they are required to pay premium prices.
Prob insane if consider 599 passive safety as comparable to that of CL/997TT
.....if 599 had CL-like passive safety, CL would be largely irrelevant....kudos to a low-vol mfr like F to impart outstanding perf/comfort/reliability engg to 599.....they now only need to address passive safety
Haven't seen any crash test data for '07 S/CL/599/997TT/LS....unfortunately, lim-vol models tend to have scant public data....
Need to consider top-line/latest-tech models, e.g., '07 LS460L vs '07 S600/CL600 (lesser models/older-tech models tend to have own issues) vs 599 vs 997TT...is there public crash testing data on '07 S/CL/599/997TT?
....are crash tests as statistically dubious as various reliability surveys?....drive all in varying conds and consider various factors of active/passive safety.....do the various published crash tests reveal active safety, in terms of braking/steering/handling/stab ctrls/trac in both wet/dry? Or passive safety in terms of real-world impacts vs SUV in terms of not only death risk, but risk of spinal/head, etc injuries? How does IIHS-type ins claim data adjust for different driver demographics/driving capabilities/styles/uses, etc? How important is active safety vs passive safety....and how to weigh each in terms of considering overall safety of any car in one's own local speed/weather/inept fellow driver climate?
Doubt many quant guys take any of these published data very seriously....
Prob need to rely on a comb of own common-sense eval of active/passive safety engineering of each of cars...and anecdotal data with respect to reliability.....and place own bets....and live w/consequences if wrong....
BTW, more profitable custs of most well-run consumer businesses, whether custom house building/private planes/universities or private schools/high-end restaurants, etc etc...or cars
....tend to receive better svc than do less profitable custs....
.....socialism doesn't work too well
....and most smart, high-end custs vote w/their dollars, rather than through silly surveys/pseudo-scientific crash tests created/managed by various marketing/engineering flunkies w/dubious net worth/IQ.....
. I owned 2 MLs and a CLK and honestly I can tell(no exaggeration) they went to the dealer for service at least 3 times a month if not more.
