No, Powers has TWO different studies, the IQS (Initial Quality Study), and VDS (Vehicle Dependability Study). I pretty much ignore all of the IQS surveys as most of the automakers are within a couple of defects per 100 vehicles of each other. It's the VDS that's the important one. Here's a link to the 2009 study, go check it out...
Sure there's been bias. I've seen it with autos and I've seen with computer reviews from many years ago. I've written to them about it, and I know they've received many subscription cancellations due to their abuse of the Big Three. I suspect that's why in the last few years they've begun to spell out more carefully the differences between the autos, and stop the practice of granting automatic Predicted Reliability ratings based on past performance. No new vehicle should be given a rating until after a year has passed and data has been gathered.
Derek
But this is still a survey, with the limitations of a survey.
Plus, the study was with cars that were about 2 or 3 years old (2006 model year study done in Oct. 2008). It doesn't say how well cars hold up after this period. What would be a far better study would be a study of what is actually replaced by owners during the life of the car. It would be a hard study to do.
Jeff
I am now on my 4th 1992 Grand Whatever (this one is a Caravan) and it has
239,000 miles on it. It has some grunts and groans, but overall it's in fairly decent shape for it's age and mileage. A freah shot of paint on the hood, and a good wash and wax and I wouldn't be afraid to park it anywhere.I knew when my wife bought our first 1992 (regular) Caravan in 1994 it was a decently made vehicle. They suffered tranny problems because of soft pieces in the trannies, but once that was corrected they turned out fairly well.
My '94 LHS was also a decent car, and I wasn't afraid of driving it anywhere. And no trans problem at all in that car.
Both are just about worthless as far as guiding the consumer. The difference between the Top rated Buick at 122 and the average at 170 is "per 100 cars". So for the ONE car owned by the consumer it's a trivial difference of 0.48 problems, whether that's per year or over the entire 3 years I couldn't tell. But in any case, anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over that not quite half a problem needs to get a hobby. You have to get way down toward the bottom to seen enough difference in the numbers to get the least bit excited. If they told you the COST instead of OCCURANCE it would be a whole lot more useful. I also noticed their disclaimer about statistical significance. Since they felt they needed to say it I'm guessing the truth is that when looked at with the common statistical tests of significance their survey isn't much better then toilet paper.
If you survey Customers this might be a hard survey. However if you survey parts suppliers, it should be relatively easy. I've always assumed manufacturers know the truth, but have no incentive to make it public. I am certain that Ford and GM and Toyota and...all have a pretty good idea of the reliability of each other's products. They just aren't telling us...
Ed
CR itself often says samples are too small for valid results, and the smaller the samples, generally the greater the variations.
You still haven't shown CR having a bias against American brands.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:21:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski fired up the etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:
Valid point.
As an example, back in the '80s when I read CR, I always noticed them mentioning "cheap plastic" on GM interiors. I never knew what cheap plastic meant as compared to non-cheap or expensive plastic. It is all plastic.
In any case, I drove to work in my Chevy Avalanche, and then hopped into a sub-compact Prius for a work trip with some of my staff. I drove the Prius about twenty miles, which was something like 45 minutes one way and about 30 the other way.
I see no difference between the car and my truck in terms of apparent build quality. Granted the Prius is a low-end subcompact as compared to my mid-level Avalanche. But the build quality appears about the same.
Consumer Reports values safety, reliability, and value. It's true that there are other aspects of vehicles (and other products) that are often more important to buyers than those three characteristics. I'd have never bought several of the vehicles that I've purchased if I went mainly by safety, reliability, and value. But that doesn't mean that Consumer Reports is biased.
The most amusing claims of bias are when people get upset about their surveys which ask owners of the product to rate the product that they've purchased. Whether it's vehicles or wireless service, there's no reason to believe that the owner or user of one product or service is more or less likely to lie about their experience with the product or service than the owner of a different product or service.
Closest thing to that is dealership warranty and post-warranty info, and I doubt you'll get any of that. Maybe some large fleet customers might share info like that...
Derek
You make a valid point in that it would very useful to know what are the differences in the "problems" each make has. It makes a big difference if the problems are minor, such as leak or part recall, or major - like a transmission failure.
Derek
Yet the way cars and trucks in large fleets is not the same as regular people.
Sure I have. They totally screwed the Ford Probe versus the Mazda 626, whether intentionally or not, and FAILED to correct the statistics. It's obvious something was wrong, but they did nothing for years - until enough people complained and they finally got burned by a vehicle being unjustly given a "reliable" rating ahead of having any data to prove that it was. Total bullcrap. The only vehicles that were given the false ratings were Japanese.
Derek
LOL, sure you do.
Even when there are two very similar vehicles with different nameplates, there are valid reasons for differences in the results of the CR surveys of owners.
Sure they are, you even said so, just in different words - "Consumer Reports values safety, reliability, and value."
I am not saying that anyone is lying about there responses. I am arguing that the sample group is not statistically sounds and that it is likely that the people who respond to the surveys are likely to parrot the CR opinons. This is not lying, it is human nature at work.
Ed
Of course there are reasons, one is that the survey is faulty, another is that the CR survey is basically an opinion poll, not a data collection exercise.
Ed
LMAO. I bought one too in 2001, and sold it in 2004. Last GM I will ever buy. Had transmission issues early on, many bandaid type repairs, eventually told them to put a new one in as we are getting close to lemon law - hint - hint. After being jacked around, I vowed it was my last GM.
Might it also be that these types of vehicles, although similar, are not identical, and that they might actually be viewed differently by the buyer? Dealership handling of problems and warranty issues can certainly have a major impact on the degree of satisfaction one might have with the unit.
No, they're not biased because they evaluate all of the vehicles to the same set of standards.
The sample size is very large. The questions on the surveys are very specific, asking about problems that the owner has had with the vehicle. They aren't general touchy-feely questions where the owner has the opportunity to parrot CR's evaluations and recommendations. The surveys about reliability and the articles evaluating the products are two very different animals.
Clearly you've never seen one of the CR surveys if you think it's an opinion poll.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.