Originally Posted by bitkahuna

here's the problem with those stupid charts.
145 problems per 100 vehicles (best) is avg 1.45 problems per vehicle, right?
284 problems per 100 vehicles (worst) is avg 2.84 problems per vehicle, right?

so while charts allow owners of vehicles near the top to virtue signal all day long, the truth is the worst has less than 3 problems while the best has less that 1.5 problems, so hardly a big deal either way.

Originally Posted by Striker223

The only must have requirements are real cargo hold downs, ability to hold at least a full size washer/dryer size item, and ability to carry an item of that size that's is 1000-1200lb and towing at least 5000lb with an overall size not exceeding about the size car I already have. Off road ability is a plus but not really required, I just like having at least one car I can take to trails and not care about damage.

Originally Posted by jrmckinley

...numbers never lie, but I can make them say whatever you want them to say - especially when using graphs and charts where things can be scaled differently.

Originally Posted by sm1ke

Not a perfect metric by any means, but it can be a useful indicator to identify if further research is needed.

Originally Posted by Freds430

So what you're saying is the Land Rover at the bottom and Lexus at the top there's very little difference in their reliability.

Originally Posted by jrmckinley

I've never been a fan of these charts and reports showing "problems" or charting "reliability" and have been outspoken on the forum about it. But bit is absolutely right - if you look at Lexus it's 159 problems per 100 cars and Land Rover is 284 problems per 100 cars. This is likely a pretty decent sample size, however your 3 friends with Land Rovers is an extremely small sample size.

I'm a sales guy and numbers never lie, but I can make them say whatever you want them to say - especially when using graphs and charts where things can be scaled differently. Imagine if this chart was done showing problems per car (not problems per 100 cars). Every manufacturer would be jumbled together.

Lexus sales rep pitch using this chart: Land Rover vehicles have a 75% higher "problem rate" reported using JD Power data compared to Lexus
*Notice how I switch to percentages here to drive the largest gap possible.
Land Rover sales rep pitch: Did you see the latest JD Power report? We only have 1.2 more problems per car compared to Lexus which is historically one of the most reliable luxury brands.
* Notice how I extrapolated the chart data from per 100 cars down to a single car to minimize the gap as much as possible and make it more relatable to the individual.

PS- Both statements are true.

Research what Purdue Pharmaceutical did manipulating their charts and graphs for Oxycontin. The visuals of how data is presented makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by sm1ke

I think you're using this term incorrectly here.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

that's not what i'm saying, that's what the chart says.

funny how the only posts i see from you are to virtue-signal about lexus reliability.



buying ANY 4 year old vehicle has risks, no matter how 'reliable' a given manufacturer is. that's why i don't buy used cars. i did not write that land rovers are as reliable as lexus. i said the chart is stupid, because it exaggerates the differences.



post of the day.



seems people like to tout these charts to say 'see how smart i was getting brand x and not brand y'.



agreed it's not useless, but the dramatic chart distorts the data. would i buy a land rover? no because it just doesn't appeal to me.

Originally Posted by LexsCTJill

So.. Are you saying Land Rovers are as reliabile as Lexus?