Originally Posted By: mkaresh
No major reliability survey counts preventive recalls (where a fix is made before a problem has manifested) as a repair. There are a few good reasons for this:
1. For many newer cars the recall repairs would swamp the regular ones, so you'd end up measuring recalls more than actual failures.
2. Reporting every recall would be more work for respondents.
3. Respondents would be less likely to report a recall repair, since many would assume they don't count, and you'd end up with less accurate stats.
4. Manufacturers would be penalized for spending money to prevent problems before they happen, and would then be less likely to voluntarily recall cars.
Not sure I agree with that philosophy, or parts of its accuracy.
Yes reporting recalls as repairs is more work for the responder, as is reporting any repair. but it should be all about getting good data on problems with the cars. If recalls are "swamping actual repairs", to me that indicates a problem vehicle and it should be recognized as such. Of the 5 recalls on my wife's Fit at least three of them corrected actual failures in parts or designs (and possibly a 4th), but by your definition they aren't repairs. Even though Honda initiated the repair, its still a repair. A recall is a significant inconvenience to the owner, and I personally would want to know if I should expect to be inconvenienced by repeated recalls. I don't dispute that other reliability studies may be done the same way, but I disagree that that is the proper or most useful or accurate way of doing it.