Toyotas are for those who like to waste money on a false perception

Page 2 of 4  
Michael wrote:


Take the winner off the race results, everyone moves up a notch. <G>
Your point?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:

he doesn't have one. a "race" assessed on the first 90 days of ownership is a fixed race. and even when the race is fixed, domestics are /still/ garbage. it's just pathetic [paid?] trolling.
but pathetic though that is, it's /nothing/ compared to the fact that /we/ taught q.c. to the japanese. wtf can't we use our own freakin' resources for our own freakin' benefit???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are talking about the difference between 1 problem and 1.2 problems per vehicle in the first 90 days. For comparable vehicles, it is my opinion, a Toyota will cost around 5% more ($500 to $1000). Considering that most of the problems are minor, is 0.2 problems really worth $500? And if you go for the Toyota, you are stuck with the boring design, crappy driving position, archaic engineering, and high repair and maintenance costs.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO, that is a meaningless survey. I was very happy with my car for the first 3 years. At five years, I'm very disappointed in it. At 90 days, I'd have given it a top rating as it has 0 defects at that point. Yes, at 1 or 2 years I would have also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah and if you add Renault, and subtract Yamaha engine and add a Suzuki platform, then Mazda would come number one as well!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With JD Powers you are probably right. Whoever sends them enough money to promote their brand will get the nod. With JD Powers if you took away Lexus, you just might get higher ratings with GM. But take away JD Powers and go to the real world and you will find Toyota at the top and Honda #2.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interesting according CRs survey of its over 200,000 subscribers, the 63,607 of whom responded of the 9,000,000 or so buyers who bought 2006 model vehicles so far, Toyota buyers chose the number FOUR rated brand of vehicles rather than the number TWO rated brand. Amazing! If one bases their purchase of the opinions of others, why would anybody do that? The number two brand, Hyundai, had a initial quality rating that is only a paltry .02 better than Toyota for sure, but the drive home price in generally at least 20% MORE to if one buys a Toyota.
Of course CR releases only the raw numbers to the public so one can not quantify the type or severity on the defects. To get the details of the survey and get the real scoop, one must pay big bucks for a copy ;)
CR proves once again that every manufacture is building good quality vehicles today, the only real difference is style and price. According to CR the initial quality rate for 2006 models falls between .93 to 2.04 with the average being only .0124. That is an industry wide improvement of 8% from their 2005 survey. That is better than most every product on the market today, pretty amazing considering how and where autos are used vis a v other products. ;)
mike hunt

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8I3H4QO0.htm?sub=apn_home_down&chan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:39:15 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

ok, but such vehicles are less than a year old. Admittedly, I've a friend who's had an 06 camry now for 18 months, and is sick and tired of its problemsinflaited maintainance etc.
by the time we get 2-3 years down the road, then we'll see if these cars still perform as good to own and drive.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is a whole other survey. This survey merely compare the vehicles when new.
mike hunt

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

Please note that this is the INITIAL quality survey. The whole point if this particular survey is to see how consistent a brand and its suppliers are when it comes to the quality of parts used in a vehicle and how well they're assembled at the plant. It's a rating of quality control and how well the car companies are managing it. What they're getting at with the survey is that EVERY vehicle line will have a problem car or 2 come off the line, this just is an indicator of which those are.
Take the 2006 Grand Prix for example (it took top honors for the "large car" segment BTW). I own one, it's had 2 quality problems (though I didn't get the survey), one was a chirping HVAC fan with the other being peeling finish on an interior door panel. Both of those problems are QC issues at the supplier level but it appears that my car actually falls into the "normal" range. Both problems were resolved by the dealer without question, the HVAC fan was replaced at the first oil change, the door panel was replaced shortly after due to it being on backorder (indicating to me that there either was a big QC issue at the supplier or they were building as many cars as they could get panels for). I've had no other problems but the car is just about to pass 9,000 miles so it's still a baby. I DID buy an extended warranty for my car, not that I EXPECT a problem down the road, but I wanted warranty coverage for the life of the loan.

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

Great. Thing is, as you said, its initial problems,. A survay like the top gear one, is for cars after 2-3 years of ownership. Most will still be on their first owners, but racking up the miles and services.
New car survays aren't that informative, just tells you how good the new car is. Doesn't tell you how often things needed repair, how the dealer was when these repairs took place etc.
THAT is more important, the living with it, than the first few weeks.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike,
The reference is to a JD Powers Survey - not Consumer Reports.
Ed

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8I3H4QO0.htm?sub=apn_home_down&chan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:39:15 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

Had they known, they would have bought Porsche's I suppose.
The latest CR survey collected reports on over 1,000,000 vehicles. Since only subscribers are surveyed (and not all of them respond), it is safe to say that there are well over 200,000 subscribers. Where you got the 63,607 number is anyone's guess.

I think Toyota and Honda buyers are basing their purchase on a solid history of reliability in their vehicles. There isn't much difference between the latest model year cars in the CR survey. These cars are an average of 90 days old at the time of the survey. Even so, 2005 Toyotas and Hondas were significantly better (in a statistical sense) than Hyundais, Kias, Fords and GMs. For earlier models (i.e. older cars) the differences are dramatic. I don't think most buyers are basing their decision on the CR survey. In my experience they are basing it past experience. Toyota and Honda owners are buying Toyotas and Hondas while GM and Ford owners are buying, well... Toyotas and Hondas.

I am not aware that CR sells the raw data to anyone at any price, but if someone is paying big bucks to find out whether the cooling system component that fails is the radiator or the water pump, they are getting screwed because CR doesn't collect that information.

Well that is interesting because CR just finished their first survey of 2006 cars and hasn't released any results yet. I think you are mistaken (for the 211th time I believe) and are referring to the JD Power survey. JD Power is first and foremost a marketing tool. "Initial quality" means little unless you trade your car every 90 days. Those of us who keep their cars for five, ten or more years aren't that concerned with the first 90 days. (I haven't owned a car that new since 1992.)
There is a huge difference in the reliability of different cars as they age. As of this year, CR data doesn't indicate absolute failure rates, but looking at last year's survey you can see that seven year old Accords had an electrical failure rate in the 2 - 5% range while a Malibu of the same age had a failure rate over 15%. In fact the failure rate had been over (how much over?) 15% since the car was three years old. This is a clear indication of multiple and/or un fixable problems. And that is just one subsystem. These aggravating and expensive problems can force many people to just give up and buy a new car which is the most expensive repair of all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are entitled to you own opinion just as were the persons replying to the survey. We are speaking of the NEW vehicles, available on the market TODAY, not the vehicles sold ten year ago. Every manufacture is building better vehicles today than even five years ago. Hyundai would not have bested Toyota in a survey ten years ago.
You are correct I misspoke, it was not CR but JD Powers survey that was published in the Tribune newspapers. The number surveyed was listed as 63,607 returns of the 200,000 sent out. I simply pointed to the result published that listing Hyundai brand vehicles as number two and Toyota brand vehicles as number four.
As to the validly of the survey it was between all manufactures, on initial quality, no more no less. Historically however JD Powers long term survey show basically the same result. The number of defects for all brands fall into the same one to two percent range. When brand vehicle lines are compared statistically one has a 98% chance of getting a good one, no mater whose name is on the grill, and an equal 2% chance of getting one that is problematic. In any event the 'defects' are not quantified, to get that you must pay a fee. Surly you do not believe JD Powers does all that surveying for free?
As to long term reliability, that is a survey for another day. JD Powers only survey vehicles purchase new over five year, not ten and not used as does CR. Very few new car buyers keep their vehicles anywhere near ten years, only around two to three percent do so. Statistically in the US the average new car buyer replaces their vehicle with another new vehicle in three to four years with 30K to 45K on the clock. At some point they all will need repairs
mike hunt
.
wrote:

>> Amazing! If one bases their

I am not aware that CR sells the raw data to anyone at any price, but

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:17:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

How could we possibly know how well 2006 vehicles will hold up after five years. All we can do is assume that they will be the same or slightly better than the 2001s.
According to Consumer Reports, Hyundai reliability is not up to Toyota and Honda standards at any age. However, they have improved a lot over the years.
One thing JDP and CR do agree on; Hyundais overall are now more reliable than Ford and GM. In fact, in the CR survey Hyundai reliability is actually closer to Honda and Toyota than it is to GM and Ford.

CR shows a huge range of problem rates at five years, from 0.2 problems per car for the best Hondas and Toyotas up to 1.4 problems per car for the worst GMs, VWs, Chryslers and Mercedes. The average GM vehicle has about 0.9 problems, the average Toyota about 0.3, Honda 0.4 . In other words, expect to have a problem every year with your Chevy, every third year for your Toyota.

You also must pay a fee to JDP if you want to cite their results in your ads. That gives them an incentive to make everyone look good somehow, particularly big companies with lots of advertising dollars.
By contrast, CR will not allow anyone to cite their reports in advertising. They serve only their readers.

Of course they will. Probably lots of repairs if they are Ford or GM.
The average buyer pays a lot more for cars over his lifetime if he trades every 4 or 5 years. of course, the depreciation on Fords and GMs is terrible because no one wants one that is four or five years old.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tha may be your opinion but one can just as well ask how could we possibly know how well 2001 vehicles will hold up after five years, when the survey was completed back then?
Spin it anyway you chouse, the fact remains the Hyundai brand bested the Toyota brand in the JD Powers survey of 2006 models in initial quality. That was not the case five years ago and THAT my friend is what the survey was all about.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:42:29 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

How can you *know*? You couldn't have *known* that the Earth wouldn't have been destroyed by a killer meteorite by now. But based on past histories and trends, it was a good bet back in 2001 that your 2001 Toyota or Honda would be more reliable than a GM or Ford. And subsequent history has bourn that out. The same is now true of 2006. Even though there is no CR data on them yet, based on experience with 1998 - 2005 cars, Honda and Toyota are a better bet than GM or Ford.

Well, on that basis I recommend that you go out and buy a Hyundai next time. My issue is that I don't really trust JDP. I don't trust their motives and I don't trust their results. They are far more opaque than CR and the results do seem to bounce around a lot.
In any event I don't put much faith in 90 day reliability statistics whether they come from JDP or CR. At best it is a measure of random defects and assembly errors. Those tend to shake out during the warranty period. Serious design defects and deficiencies tend to appear later.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

Precisely, one can never know any more than one can rely on the opinions of others or the past history. On can only rely on what they can discern TODAY, because the vehicles on which the survey was based are the ONLY vehicles being sold today, not the same vehicles that were sold years ago.. The fact remains every manufacture is building high quality dependable vehicles today, the only real difference among them is style and price.
If one could go by past performance they could make a killing in stock market. Every prospectus admonishes the stock purchaser that past performed in no indicator of what may or may not happen in the future..
The surveys consistently shown over the past years that statically one has a far better change of getting one of any manufactures good ones than their bad ones, no mater whose brand in on the grill, so there is little difference in what brand you buy. If one simply relied on the opinions of others, few would have purchased a Hyundai brand vehicles ten years ago. In 2006 however the Hyundai brand of vehicles has bested Toyota brand vehicles when compared by the same criteria.
The point of my original post on the subject of surveys was that IF one goes by surveys, than the Hyundai brand were a better choice for those that make their purchase decisions based on surveys, because Hyundai brand bested Toyota brand and many believe Toyota makes the better vehicles. Pretty basic concept.
Seems strange that when ones preferred brand does well in a survey, the loyalist point to that survey as to why others should buy the brand they choose to buy. When another brand does better in a survey or in the sales race than their preferred brand, the surveys and sales figures all of a sudden become meaningless LOL
mike hunt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can't know either. "Initial quality" has nothing to do with durability, they're two separate animals. European cars have traditionally had abysmal "initial quality" but pretty darn good durability, for example.
nate
(too lazy to fix top posting today)
Mike Hunter wrote:

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
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.