I'm still here. I'll let the doctorates in statistics like Michael Karesh argue the method, I'm hoping that a reasonable cross section of data will be better than what we have now, i.e., rumor and speculation.
PAG knows but they aren't saying anything, instead they redesigned the engine

 

If we were teenagers hacking into the car fax and compiling a database or porsche dealer repairs we'd not be acting unknowing. We'd be going to jail

 

Mr. Karesh's degree is in "consumer behavior", not statistics. Out of respect to the people on this board who have bona fides in the latter discipline.

 

Actually my degree is in sociology, not consumer behavior, and included extensive training in survey research and statistical analysis at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). But this isn't terribly relevant, as the analyses I'm currently performing are fairly basic and don't require the skills of a first-rate statistician. The hard part is getting enough owners involved and then managing tens of thousands of responses.

Owners have been signing up, and we're close to getting started for a few model years. The 2002 is now only two cars short of the minimum.

We did recently update results for the Boxster, and these provide some indication of the information I hope to provide for the 911 as well.

Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year:

2008: 36, better than average

2006: 47, better than average

2005: 49, better than average

2004: 67, about average, small sample size

2003: 94, about average, small sample size

2002: 118, about average

2001: 115, about average

2000: 92, better than average

1999: 117, about average

Important note: these cars are only driven an average of 5,500 miles a year, about half as much as the average car. No adjustment has been made for this.

We still need more participants to report with any precision on the IMS failure rate. So far, with 180 986s participating for an average of about six months, only four IMS failures have been reported, two of them over a year ago.

To help get the 911 included:

Car reliability research

 

Then may I suggest you correct your Wikipedia entry. Also, your spelling.

 

I didn't write the wikipedia entry. My apologies for insufficiently proofreading the post and misspelling one word. Fixed, and thanks for the tip.

 

I take it the wounds have healed and you are back for more?

 

That does not prevent you from correcting it. Thus, 'wiki'. Anybody can add to or change any article. Where there are factual errors, I should think that you might feel a duty to do so.

 

No more sticks and stones from me.

I'm just offering Mr. Karesh some mentoring on the magic of the internets, which I really think are going to catch on.

 

I haven't looked into the ethics of editing a wikipedia entry about yourself. I assume at least some people would have a problem with this.

With the current entry someone asked if I'd mind if they wrote one, and I said this would be fine with me.

I'm fairly comfortable with the "Internets." Much less comfortable with these new app things, which I fear will replace computer-based Internet usage for many people.

As for any wounds, I post about once a month either way.

 

Wikipedia's ethics are pretty straighforward. It's common and acceptable for people and organizations to write on their own behalf, as long as community standards are observed. If they aren't, Wikipedia and its contributors are quick to flag content that's a stub, or inaccurate, or self-promoting, as a previous version of the True Delta article was.

In this particular case, it would actually be a welcome service for you to go in and correct your credentials, since they are so essential to the credibility of the article. It would actually be less 'ethical' to let inaccurate information stand.

 

I think you might have misread the entry.

I don't see where the article says what field my Ph.D. is in. It only says "For his Masters thesis, Karesh did work with early research in consumer behavior," which is correct.

Venturing off-topic, a related paper appears to have been posted online here:

http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/...5%20karesh.pdf

 

I think neglect coupled with a high performance car is bound to be a bad combination. Maybe the expectation is that because it is expensive, it should never break. Sure, the 996 is probably significantly more complicated than it's air-cooled cousins...and more parts always introduces more chances of failures - but I have not gotten the impression thus far that it is a lemon by design.

After several years of producing the 996, Porsche sure had the opportunity to tweak the design on the 997 to improve the reliability. But when I look at all the small repairs on my car so far...they were all due to neglect and or normal wear.

 

Dear God, is this thread still going on? Make it stop.

 

Yeah, even ignoring his "statistics for toddlers" didn't make him go away.

Sadly, there are some around here that fell for his sales pitch and decided to participate - more fool them.