BlueSander

blah blah blah, I was with this place then I left. Why wasting time on this when you can find out what you want on Consumer Report anyday, anytime? Their data is okay in some but way off in others.

ChipB

Not true! I've been reporting on my S5 to True Delta since last December.
They used to nag you if you didn't report each month, but they've stopped that. Now they simply send a single monthly reminder, and if you have had no work done on your car you don't have to report.

I thought your comment about spam is pretty funny, coming from someone who has five pictures in his signature clogging up the forum!

mkaresh

We had a reliability stat for the 2009 A4 and A5 in May. The more owners participate, the more accurate the stats tend to be. We've had excellent participation for the B8 A4.

CR still doesn't have a stat for this car, and won't have one until October or November.

They only provide dots, which are vague and can be misleading. We post actual repair frequencies.

That's why.

mkaresh

To be honest, nothing has changed. The system is programmed to "learn" who doesn't need the reminders, and those people are not sent them. This learning requires at least two responses, so it takes a few months. It has now occurred in your case.

In the interim, it is possible to avoid the reminders by clicking a "check in" link in the email. Takes as long as it usually takes to click a link.

mkaresh

Opting out is as simple as replying to the email with "unsubscribe." Says this at the bottom of each email, the conventional location. I do reply to unsubscribes to check that someone isn't simply trying to report a car as sold, and to solicit feedback. But if I don't get a response to this email that's the end of it.

I am grateful that you and a few others have spoken up to show that there's more than one opinion on what we do. It's an uphill battle, but we're succeeding. At some point in August the 50,000th car will be enrolled--this has been a goal for at least two years.

BlueSander

If I'm correct, you are the Author of this program? From my stand of view, your program is misleading right at its own theory. Let's together look at only the Audi owners. How many out there actually go on the web and search around in forums about their cars? How many out of all those will go to your website and sign up their car? These two questions along (not counting how many will be patient enough to continue), i think, already point out how the collected information can become misleading. CR tests the car on their own which is realiable enough to most consumer out there. They also collect data from dealers and tons of other ways to put together a rating system on all models.
Now, let's me tell you why CR doesn't compare model independently. It's because most owner will rate their car good (even if there has been problem here and there). That's human nature. And by the end, you will have a long list of good, good and good cars. What's the point of that? CR put their list together, compare all car as a whole. That's the reason why all Audi, Mercedes and BMW ... get poor rate on ownership cost. If you ask all those Audi owner along, their answer may be good. Why? Because to most of them, $150-200 oil change is very reasonable.

just my .02

Lucien4

CR doesn't test for long-term reliability themselves. I don't know where they get the data from but for many Audi models they have no rating due to insufficient data. If they collect the data from dealers then arguably that's not reliable either since not everyone may go to their dealer to fix issues.

Either way any rating system I agree can be misleading (as are any generalized stats), but you can browse reported mileage and detailed repairs which by itself is valuable info. Not any different as someone would go to a forum and asks if anyone else got similar problem X.

Austin A6 3.2

You are plain WRONG. CR gets their reliability data from mailed surveys to subscribers. I know, I am one of them. The reliability data is solely based on the surveys returned by the subscribers.

From a statistical point of view, the TrueDelta data is much more accurate, since it's collected more frequently and more directly (i.e. less time for people to forget things that have been wrong with the vehicle).

I just wish people would stop spreading misinformation based on assumptions ...

Again, I have no affiliation with TrueDelta, I simply participate in the surveys since I thinks is a great idea that benefits car buyers with independent information (unlike the JD Power BS for instance) to make purchasing decisions. I also participate in the CR surveys for the same reason.

BlueSander

You are just so wrong! I'm one of them too! but they don't just get data from survey. You are gotta be kidding me if you think those surveys are all they have. Also, anyone who has ever taken any basic econ course should know survey are the one of most biased way to collect data and internet based survey is the bottom of that list.

Lucien4

Have you ever looked at truedelta repair entries? You'd be hard-pressed to say that the info is incorrect. It doesn't sound like you know what data CR uses either but regardless they have no data on many Audi models plus you have to wait years before they publish ('too new').

It's not an internet based 'survey', it's a data entry log system (have you used it?). There is a similar feature on fueleconomy.gov for MPG and I definitely value that real-world info. People who don't like or trust it can always ignore that data but I found the data to be reliable.