2008 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study: Porsche, Honda, Chevrolet among big winners

Page 3 of 3  

For brevity, I snipped Gordon's helpful observations. Look back.

Of course, CR does too, as has been noted.

I too think this is one of the big advantages of the CR survey. J.D. Power has only three categories (plus "overall"). CR has 17! It is very important to me to know whether a tranny has been problematic and whether it is "major" or "minor" problematic, or is it electrical or "major engine" or "minor engine" etc. CR evaluates this.
Maybe you saw this already, but for others, here is an FAQ on the CR survey that I think is very helpful: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm
It puts the average sample per model-year between 200 and 400, which is less than I estimated, with some model-years having several thousand samples, and some having less than 100. The latter's results are excluded from publication.
The CR FAQ also notes that it is the differences between models where there is statistical significance. Again, that's key. Because fact is a 1% failure rate in a sample size of 1000 has a margin of error of about +/- 3%. (One sees this margin of error in political polls all the time. Political poll takers aim for around 1000 "hits" so they can report a MOE of about 3%.) So CE White is correct with his concern about reading any individual chart "too precisely." But his concern will also apply to the J.D. Power survey. One has to look at the differences between models, instead, among other things.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Please let me know wherer I can find the "numbers." I have the magazine and an on-line subscription. I've nver seen raw numbers. It is my opinion that CR does there very best to obsure the actual source of their data and to over emphasize minor differences. If they actually have the raw numbers available somewhere, maybe I would change my opinion.

And then they don't tell you the numbers, instead they feed them to some internal CR process that obscures the raw data and outputs meaningless little circles. Plus, they allow the respondent a lot of leeway in deciding what is minor and what is major.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm > It puts the average sample per model-year between 200 and 400, which

Thanks for posting this. It confirms my worst fears. CR is making very fine distinction form poorly collected data. The FAQ tries to spin this as being useful, but clearly the little circles are even less meaningful than I thought. In many cases they are giving vehicles a poor rating based on a reported problem rate 4% greater than average. There is no way the CR survey has an accuracy of +/-3% for most of the vehicles listed (the typical vehicle has 200 to 400 responses; they allow data to be reported with as few as 100 responses). This means the little circles are at best worthless for many vehicles. I suppose for high volume vehicles there may be some validity, but still the difference between an excellent and poor rating is at best very small. Probably so small as to be insignificant compared to other factors if people knew how small the difference truly is. My sister just purchased a RAV4, mainly because it had such good reliability ratings. If I had told her it was at best likely to have 4% fewer problems than an Escape, which she could have bought for thousands less, I suspect she might have considered the Escape (especially since my younger Sister has a 7 year old Escape that has been trouble free).
Actually I agree that my concerns apply to JD Powers is well. But at least JD Powers gives you the raw data (problems per 100 vehicles). From that I can infer that most vehicles are very close in quality. CR on the other hand gives you little circles that imply great difference, when in fact they are actually very minor in most cases. I find this to be a misleading approach.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We discussed this already. Look at the key for the circles in the April issue.
The notion that what the CR circles tell us are the /differences between/ models, and not a statistically meaningful problem rate for each model-year, is not easy for a lot of people to grasp. Yet it's a well-known statistical concept. Most often it's the /difference/ in two averages that is most meaningful, and not the averages themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:51:37 -0400, "C. E. White"

This is like an Internet mythology. Without your citing specific instances where this is the case, it is pretty hard to respond. As far as I can see, related vehicles usually have very similar reliability records.

The average model year had about 7000 responses. A 1% failure rate represents 70 respondents (typically) who reported a problem. My guestimate is this is a lot better than a 3% margin of error.

The opinions are irrelevant. The question is, did you have to repair the transmission last year, yes or no? If the survey is inaccurate, it has produced some uncanny results. For example: Honda, of course, has a stellar repair record - traditionally neck and neck with Toyota for best in the world. Yet one year, CR reported that one feature on one Honda model had the worst repair record in the survey. That would seem to indicate that the survey respondents weren't influenced by preconceived opinions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

So why does CR's survey show that the Toyota Yaris, a car they didn't like and don't recommend, has high reliability? Did too many dissident subscribers slip into the survey by accident? ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually I would say that the Yaris is a perfect example of CR bias. Despite having only one years worth of questionnaire data, they give it a predicted reliability rating of much better than average. How many Yaris owners do you figure responded to the 2007 CR survey? In most cases CR would say the model was to new to be rated. But for a Toyota, they assume it is great.....despite recent Camry and Tundra problems. I suppose they may be basing the high rating on the history of the Echo, but there was a gap of a year between the last Echo model and the first Yaris model, and the Echo had some problem areas (paint, brakes) identified for the last year they were sold
It is interesting to read the Consumer Opinions on the CR site for the Yaris. People would complaint about the ride, or the driving position, or noise, and still give the car 5 stars. The great majority (~38 out of 53) gave it 5 stars (and all but a handful of the others gave it four stars). It seems that most people that buy these are satisfied because the car gets great gas mileage and they are willing to put us with a lot of crap to get it. I doubt that many of the respondents to the 2007 questionnaire had more than 10k miles on their Yaris. Do you think this is sufficient to say anything? Given the fact that most of the owners who responded with written opinions on the web site seemed to mostly care about gas mileage, does it seem reasonable to assume that more than a few might gloss over a few minor reliability problems because of their smugness at getting good gas mileage? Lots of cars get really good rating the first year they are surveyed. For instance, the 2007 Focus (a recommended car) has really good first year reliability rating based on the survey results (as it does for 2006 and 2005), yet CR did not provide a predicted reliability rating. They said it was "new." However, in the road test they referred to the 2007 design as a "freshening" and implied the underpinnings were not much changed. So why don't they give the Focus a good predicted reliability rating? Seems to me that they have at least as much basis for giving it this rating as for the Yaris. Remember, they claim they base the predicted reliability on the latest three model years of a design - well unless it is a Toyota, apparently one year is enough for them.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you should check the CR reliability matrices for the Tundra (for one) in the last few years. IIRC I checked that not long ago and thought, yup, this particular Toyota model is no-good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

I didn't claim CR openly lied about reliability. Even CR doesn't have enough guts to make excuses for that turkey. Ditto for the V6 Camry. Some things are just to bad to cover-up. I was complaining about the Yaris getting a an excellent reliability rating when it is a new model, with no substantial history. I see the FAQ covers this (or is it excuses this?).
Ed
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:32:43 -0400, "C. E. White"

But the only reason you know it is a "turkey" is because CR told you it was. Up until 2006, the Camry has an excellent reliability record. If there was bias in the system, how was the poor reliability of 2006 and 2007 models spotted so quickly? Same thing with the 2007 Tundra. Both of the vehicles received high marks in testing. There was no reason fro the owners to suddenly turn on them. They just independently reported the troubles they had and when the results were tallied, they had a relatively poor level of reliability that was very surprising for a Toyota product. There is no reason to suspect that the results are not accurate.

AFAIK, no one even suspected that Toyota quality was slipping until CR reported this. That says to me that they could easily have covered it up if they chose.

Predicting excellent reliability on a new model when the "manufacturer has a track record of consistently outstanding (above average) reliability" doesn't seem unreasonable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
used to believe in JD Power but porsche?
puuurleeese - new short engine at each service?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Consumer Reports isn't the authoritative survey, but because it's on the magazine shelf it has a lot of clout with the typical consumer. If you know a more authoritative source than JD Powers let me know.

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

"Authoritative survey" is an oxymoron.
Surveys merely suggest, some with more statistical reliability than others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The JDP Initial quality survey is a mixed bag of bullshit data. "Too much wind noise and the engine blew up" would count as two defects.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:

They look at other vehicles with similar engines and other major components, as well as the history of the company's reliability for other models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:27:06 -0400, "C. E. White"

Actually, they probably only have 3 - 6K on the car as the average new model is only three months old when the survey is completed. As someone said, you might be able to determine it is terrible that quick, but it is too soon to know if it is great. That first year record is the equivalent of the JDP initial quality survey except JDP mixes reliability questions with fuzzy stuff like how the dealer treats you.
Why does Toyota give Yaris a solid prediction based on little evidence? You would have to ask them but I suspect that they looked at the first year results and compared them to older Toyotas that had similar first year reliability and decided that Yaris would likely be very good.

Sounds like a wild theory to me. If the water pump broke, the water pump broke. Even at the height of their popularity, the monster SUVs never were rated reliable by their smug owners.

First of all, the first year reliability ratings on Focus aren't as good as most Toyotas. Second, the prediction is based on all model years available, not just results for the most recent model year (which we agree doesn't mean much.) Focus reliability has been mediocre over the years.

They apparently decided that there were too many unknowns for the new design. If they had based a prediction on past experience with the Focus, it probably would have gotten an empty circle.

I think they base it on three years if available. I seem to recall them noting when a prediction was based on only a single year's survey.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many ears ago I gave up or CR as a reliable source of information. My personal experience was far different than theirs in many cases and what they perceived as a problem, I'd perceive as a feature.
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.