Re: Vehicle Recalls Up 25% in 2007

Jeff wrote:
> Art wrote:
>> I don't feel recalls should be considered negatively.  I think 
>> Consumer Re****ts should subtract them out before calculating repair 
>> rates.  The end result would be that car manufacturers would tend to 
>> do more free recall repairs to keep their repair rate better than 
>> average and consumers would pay less for repairs.
> 
> What were you talking about? It is much easier to follow a thread if you

> in-line post rather than top post.
> 
> I don't agree. It's still a pain to get a car or truck to the dealer. 
> Neither the dealer nor the car maker pay for fuel, wear and tear or time

> lost while taking the vehicle in for repairs. A separate line for 
> in-warranty repairs (including recalls0 might be appropriate, but they 
> should not be ignored.

Inline is ok on one response, but gets confusing in sequential posts.

I believe they should be left in for repairs.  It is defiantly a 
considerable waste of time for any work done in a shop, be it a wiper 
blade or a transmission job, you're going to waste the same amount of 
time dropping it off and picking it up... maybe even more on the recall 
because you may choose to wait for it.  These certainly are a sort of 
"repair" -- the mfg's should build these things properly the first time 
(now i know this won't happen) but left in, it is still a measure of how 
the vehicle is built.

If you were buying medical equipment and looked at the tsb's... would 
you buy brand A (lets say a chevy cavalier with 321tsbs & numerous 
recalls) or a brand B (lets say a crown victoria with 100tsbs and a 
couple recalls... ;P