Re: Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3 gains, J.D. Power says

It's really incredibly stupid. Toyota went from 1.08 last year to 1.17 this year in terms of problems PER CAR. No retail car customer in their right mind owning one or two new Toyotas (or any other brand)
would consider a change of 0.09 problems in the first 90 days something meaningful in terms of making a buying decision. There is so little difference between most brands that the whole thing has become ludicrous.
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:01:55 -0400, "C. E. White"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the thing is, NONE of the cars today have enough initial defects to be considered alarming... all of them are far better than anything made a couple decades ago.
So, really, using initial defects to compare vehicles is useless because the defect levels are all in the noise floor.
The problem is, though, that what I want to know is how reliable a car will be after I've been driving it for twenty years, and measuring that without first driving the car for twenty years isn't possible. So there really isn't a good metric for what I most want to know, and the metric that _is_ available is effectively useless. It's a sad state of affairs. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Dorsey wrote:

One problem with the JD Powers and Assoc. survey is that it combines all problems. So, if there a problem with a loose screw in the dashboard or the engine caught fire and the car is trashed, the problems are weighted equally. Another problem with the survey is that these are owner reported problems. So the owners of a particular brand or model of car might be less likely to report a problem than owners of another brand or model. Finally, this is only during the first 90 days of ownership. So if a car's brakes completely fail, resulting in a wreck that destroys the car is not reported at all.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do you mean by the last sentence? If the brakes fail within the first 90 days, it's going to be reported. Why would think it wouldn't?
Problems outside of the IQS 90 days, would be covered by the JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study which would be three years from the current model year. (e.g. the 2010 survey covered problems with the 2007 model year vehicles)
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Derek Gee wrote:

If the crash occurs on day 91, it is not reported.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess that would depend on if the user was included in the Vehicle Dependability Study for that model year vehicle. Frankly, I wouldn't expect too many brake failures on day 91.
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I actually filled out one of these surveys for my Nissan Frontier. They asked a lot of questions. What they put in the press releases is just a teaser. JD Power makes money by selling the results to companies, not by giving away the information. Too bad they don't share more of the information with the public - but then if they gave a way the good stuff, how would they make money.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.