WECoyote-SuperGenius

not that this should surprise anyone here.<ul><li><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-07-19-most-stolen_x.htm">click for article</a></li></ul>

VTHokieS4

Haha just read that 10 min ago

needforsleep

ya, the way they formulate the rankings is a little off...doesn't seem like common sense.

Mark P

I was thinking the exact same thing for the "2002 S4" - not that many made

needforsleep

<ul><li><a href="http://www.statefarm.com/insuranc/auto/nicbcars/grndthft.htm">http://www.statefarm.com/insuranc/auto/nicbcars/grndthft.htm</a></li></ul>

GrandPaJohn

Me too. i actually posted before I read this. Damn slow typing skills :-(

Rory

and they don't provide theft rates nor indications of how variable the estimates are (e.g. confidence intervals). But I think using a proportion is correct: you can't use just raw number of thefts because it's confounded with car popularity: the most common cars will account for the majority of cars stolen.

Rory

nemesisa6

damn audis on there twice. and who the hell wants a maurader??? stupid thieves.

Mark P

What if EVERY M Roadster was stolen. It probably still wouldn't have the #'s to be as high up as the other cars on that list just because sooo many more of those cars are out there. Wouldn't it seem appropriate that if every M Roadster was stolen, it should make the list? From that perspective, I can see that rankings based on % makes sense. Maybe in combination with %, there should be some minimum #. Or list it both ways. Or at least state the #'s and let us see the info and understand it fully. Anyway...

needforsleep

it says "most stolen" which is incorrect based on the numbers. It should be "most popular" car to steal or something else. Saying it's the "most stolen" misleads the reader when interpreting the numbers.