How is a Canon like an expensive European car?

Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

RichA wrote:
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

I have both multiple Canons and an expensive European car. No problem
with either, after years of use. How do you explain that?

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.


How odd then that I've not had any problems with my Canon A2, 4 Canon
digicams, 3 Canon DSLRs, several lenses, and a couple flash units. Granted,
the built-in flash on my G1 stopped working a few years ago but it was
hardly missed.

Mark

On Oct 30, 10:30 am, Keith Baird wrote:
RichA wrote:
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

I have both multiple Canons and an expensive European car. No problem
with either, after years of use. How do you explain that?

Luck.

"RichA" wrote:
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

And what camera is like an American car?
Kodak Brownie?

On Oct 31, 2:35 pm, "per" wrote:
"RichA" wrote:
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

And what camera is like an American car?
Kodak Brownie?

I don't want to get into the whole car thing, it's like the high end
audio thing, unending.
But in terms of reliability, cars rank, and have ranked this way for
20 years or more.
1. Japanese.
2. American.
3. European

On 31 Oct, 19:35, "per" wrote:
"RichA" wrote:
Nice to look at, but fraught with quality problems.

And what camera is like an American car?
Kodak Brownie?

Don't feed the flames. RichA is an antagonist. Whatever you reply
he'll have his answer for. Right or wrong (and 99.9% the latter) he'll
tell you *you're* wrong.

Doc

RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

And what camera is like an American car?
Kodak Brownie?

I don't want to get into the whole car thing, it's like the
high end audio thing, unending.
But in terms of reliability, cars rank, and have ranked this
way for 20 years or more.
1. Japanese.
2. American.
3. European

Many people would agree with your car ranking, in general. The
thing is, that not all American cars are crap while not all
Japanese cars are excellent. European cars, from the cheap to the
luxo also run the gamut from very good to only mediocre. As time
has gone by beginning in the early 1990s and accelerated since
maybe 2000 or so, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have steadily improved
their quality/reliability/durability (those are 3 different
technical measures), BUT, the Japanese and Europeans have also
improved greatly over the same time period. It is definitely fair
to say, though, that the Japanese and the Koreans have improved
at a faster/higher rate than the Americans. That, coupled with
many people's sour taste from the true crap the Big Three once
produced, is a tough bad reputation to overcome.

The most common measure of early quality is the J.D. Power survey
which measures "conditions", rather than true defects that need
repair at a dealer, for the 1st 90 days in service. Consumer
Report is perhaps the 2nd most useful reporter of all the 3
quality measures. Interestingly, J.D. Power has stated in 2005,
2006, and 2007 that ALL the world's car makers produce their
worst quality on all-new vehicle models, especially when the
platform/body/trim is all-new and the suspension, engine, trans,
and the rest of the vehicle is also all-new.

Power observed that models that only are 100% new for parts of
the vehicle, say a platform and body or a driveline, initial
quality is much higher. This "news", along with internal measures
such as warrenty costs, have driven the world's car makers to
develop and build so-called "10-year platforms", sometimes also
called "world cars" in concert with partners they may have in
another country. This has begun to show up as big improvements in
the Power IQS. Also, so-called "flexible manufacturing" plants,
first invented by the Japanese but now used by everyone, helps
car makers to introduce refreshed models or mainly all-new models
along with existing models in the same plant. Often, the newer
vehicles are not even of the same genre as others in that plant,
e.g., Chrysler build both minivans and Pacificas at Windsor
Assembly Plant, multiple Jeep models at each of 2 plants in
Toledo, OH, and multiple trucks at the huge Warren Truck Plant,
often called Dodge City.

So, the message here for people who aren't wed at the hip to any
particular country or region's vehicles, nor are biased one way
or another to one or more companies, is to look at ALL the
vehicles produced by a given company, and especially at the
particulars of model(s) they are considering to see how competing
companies actually stack up. A good example of why this is so
important is the recent fall from grace that Toyota has suffered
dragging them down from #1 or #2 in nearly all market segments in
the J.D. Power to where many other companies and models, even
those nasty Americans, have actually risen in general, but even
overcome the Toyota competing brands.

One last comment on J.D. Power: the difference between #1 and #10
in a given market segment is often only a few percent of what he
called C/100, or conditions reported per hundred vehicles
surveyed. Likewise, the difference between #11 and #20 can and
often is quite a small percentage. So, I do not at all dispute
the clear superiority of the Japanese nor do I dispute the often
mediocre quality of even the upscale Europeans, one shouldn't
assume just from the badge on the vehicle that it is good, bad,
or indifferent. The true measure is how well any given vehicle
performs in what is known as "fitness of purpose", meaning what
the prospective buyer perceives as the criteria for quality,
features, styling, price, dealer service, etc.

--
HP, aka Jerry

On Nov 1, 8:06 am, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

And what camera is like an American car?
Kodak Brownie?

I don't want to get into the whole car thing, it's like the
high end audio thing, unending.
But in terms of reliability, cars rank, and have ranked this
way for 20 years or more.
1. Japanese.
2. American.
3. European

Many people would agree with your car ranking, in general. The
thing is, that not all American cars are crap while not all
Japanese cars are excellent. European cars, from the cheap to the
luxo also run the gamut from very good to only mediocre. As time
has gone by beginning in the early 1990s and accelerated since
maybe 2000 or so, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have steadily improved
their quality/reliability/durability (those are 3 different
technical measures), BUT, the Japanese and Europeans have also
improved greatly over the same time period. It is definitely fair
to say, though, that the Japanese and the Koreans have improved
at a faster/higher rate than the Americans. That, coupled with
many people's sour taste from the true crap the Big Three once
produced, is a tough bad reputation to overcome.

The most common measure of early quality is the J.D. Power survey
which measures "conditions", rather than true defects that need
repair at a dealer, for the 1st 90 days in service. Consumer
Report is perhaps the 2nd most useful reporter of all the 3
quality measures. Interestingly, J.D. Power has stated in 2005,
2006, and 2007 that ALL the world's car makers produce their
worst quality on all-new vehicle models, especially when the
platform/body/trim is all-new and the suspension, engine, trans,
and the rest of the vehicle is also all-new.

Power observed that models that only are 100% new for parts of
the vehicle, say a platform and body or a driveline, initial
quality is much higher. This "news", along with internal measures
such as warrenty costs, have driven the world's car makers to
develop and build so-called "10-year platforms", sometimes also
called "world cars" in concert with partners they may have in
another country. This has begun to show up as big improvements in
the Power IQS. Also, so-called "flexible manufacturing" plants,
first invented by the Japanese but now used by everyone, helps
car makers to introduce refreshed models or mainly all-new models
along with existing models in the same plant. Often, the newer
vehicles are not even of the same genre as others in that plant,
e.g., Chrysler build both minivans and Pacificas at Windsor
Assembly Plant, multiple Jeep models at each of 2 plants in
Toledo, OH, and multiple trucks at the huge Warren Truck Plant,
often called Dodge City.

So, the message here for people who aren't wed at the hip to any
particular country or region's vehicles, nor are biased one way
or another to one or more companies, is to look at ALL the
vehicles produced by a given company, and especially at the
particulars of model(s) they are considering to see how competing
companies actually stack up. A good example of why this is so
important is the recent fall from grace that Toyota has suffered
dragging them down from #1 or #2 in nearly all market segments in
the J.D. Power to where many other companies and models, even
those nasty Americans, have actually risen in general, but even
overcome the Toyota competing brands.

One last comment on J.D. Power: the difference between #1 and #10
in a given market segment is often only a few percent of what he
called C/100, or conditions reported per hundred vehicles
surveyed. Likewise, the difference between #11 and #20 can and
often is quite a small percentage. So, I do not at all dispute
the clear superiority of the Japanese nor do I dispute the often
mediocre quality of even the upscale Europeans, one shouldn't
assume just from the badge on the vehicle that it is good, bad,
or indifferent. The true measure is how well any given vehicle
performs in what is known as "fitness of purpose", meaning what
the prospective buyer perceives as the criteria for quality,
features, styling, price, dealer service, etc.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Well, I will admit that having driven V8 Mustangs for 20 years, they
are very reliable if primative vehicles.

RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I don't want to get into the whole car thing, it's like the
high end audio thing, unending.
But in terms of reliability, cars rank, and have ranked
this way for 20 years or more.
1. Japanese.
2. American.
3. European

Many people would agree with your car ranking, in general.
The thing is, that not all American cars are crap while not
all Japanese cars are excellent. European cars, from the
cheap to the luxo also run the gamut from very good to only
mediocre. As time has gone by beginning in the early 1990s
and accelerated since maybe 2000 or so, Ford, GM, and
Chrysler have steadily improved their
quality/reliability/durability (those are 3 different
technical measures), BUT, the Japanese and Europeans have
also improved greatly over the same time period. It is
definitely fair to say, though, that the Japanese and the
Koreans have improved at a faster/higher rate than the
Americans. That, coupled with many people's sour taste from
the true crap the Big Three once produced, is a tough bad
reputation to overcome.

The most common measure of early quality is the J.D. Power
survey which measures "conditions", rather than true defects
that need repair at a dealer, for the 1st 90 days in service.
Consumer Report is perhaps the 2nd most useful reporter of
all the 3 quality measures. Interestingly, J.D. Power has
stated in 2005, 2006, and 2007 that ALL the world's car
makers produce their worst quality on all-new vehicle models,
especially when the platform/body/trim is all-new and the
suspension, engine, trans, and the rest of the vehicle is
also all-new.

Power observed that models that only are 100% new for parts
of the vehicle, say a platform and body or a driveline,
initial quality is much higher. This "news", along with
internal measures such as warrenty costs, have driven the
world's car makers to develop and build so-called "10-year
platforms", sometimes also called "world cars" in concert
with partners they may have in another country. This has
begun to show up as big improvements in the Power IQS. Also,
so-called "flexible manufacturing" plants, first invented by
the Japanese but now used by everyone, helps car makers to
introduce refreshed models or mainly all-new models along
with existing models in the same plant. Often, the newer
vehicles are not even of the same genre as others in that
plant, e.g., Chrysler build both minivans and Pacificas at
Windsor Assembly Plant, multiple Jeep models at each of 2
plants in Toledo, OH, and multiple trucks at the huge Warren
Truck Plant, often called Dodge City.

So, the message here for people who aren't wed at the hip to
any particular country or region's vehicles, nor are biased
one way or another to one or more companies, is to look at
ALL the vehicles produced by a given company, and especially
at the particulars of model(s) they are considering to see
how competing companies actually stack up. A good example of
why this is so important is the recent fall from grace that
Toyota has suffered dragging them down from #1 or #2 in
nearly all market segments in the J.D. Power to where many
other companies and models, even those nasty Americans, have
actually risen in general, but even overcome the Toyota
competing brands.

One last comment on J.D. Power: the difference between #1 and
#10 in a given market segment is often only a few percent of
what he called C/100, or conditions reported per hundred
vehicles surveyed. Likewise, the difference between #11 and
#20 can and often is quite a small percentage. So, I do not
at all dispute the clear superiority of the Japanese nor do I
dispute the often mediocre quality of even the upscale
Europeans, one shouldn't assume just from the badge on the
vehicle that it is good, bad, or indifferent. The true
measure is how well any given vehicle performs in what is
known as "fitness of purpose", meaning what the prospective
buyer perceives as the criteria for quality, features,
styling, price, dealer service, etc.

Well, I will admit that having driven V8 Mustangs for 20
years, they are very reliable if primative vehicles.

Many people certainly agree with you on both counts, Rich. Still,
in fairness to my cross-town rivals at Ford, there is little in a
2007 Mustang that even resembles that of 1987 or 1997 other than
it is a RWD car with a big, powerful V-8. I don't think that a
buyer get get more performance for the buck than a Mustang GT,
and that even includes our HEMI 300C and Charger R/T cars, the
latter which I drive.




--
HP, aka Jerry