Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007

alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.gm,alt.autos.nissan,alt.autos.honda

> >> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, >> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive >> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective >> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial >> purposes.) > >Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke. > >> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: >> >>
formatting link
> >> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary >> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall >> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. >> >> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 >> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality >> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the >> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat >> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you >> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the >> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and >> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until >> you read the general description of what they mean by a design >> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features >> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., >> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due >> to poor location)." >> >> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a >> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly >> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is >> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to >> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards >> to hand out. > >You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you >referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never >used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company >Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the >text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top >model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this >year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were >the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article. >Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top >rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was >incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles >than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than >Ford models than the opposite.

This (112 v 120) is what I hate about the way they present this data. You look at those numbers and people think WOW, 120 is a LOT more then

112. Or if you look at the bigger list you'll find some models with 101 problems to compare to the one with 120. And the consumer is left with the impression there is this HUGE difference of 19 points between these cars and will most likely be thinking "If I by the ACME sedan I'll have 19 more problems then if I buy the SQUAT Coupe. But what it really means is that the ONE ACME vehicle he buys will have 1.2 problems to worry about and the SQUAT will have 1.01 problems. What's that mean in practical terms? It means SQUAT, i.e., nothing. He'll need to take either car back to the dealer to get the problem fixed. It maybe, might, possibly mean that over the course of a couple years the ACME will go back to the shop 2 times and the SQUAT will go back 3 times. Or depending on what breaks and when, they both may only go back 2 times. So the bottom line for the vast majority of car buyers is that all these cars are pretty much the same as far as how much "trouble" they are going to have in terms of these JDPowers figures. It's only if you compare the cars on the tail end of the distribution, one with a rating of 73 to one with a rating of 130 that there is really enough difference in "quality" that it should matter to a buyer. But CU and the like are taking these trivial differences for the vast majority of cars and turning the trivial into the difference between giving one a 2 star rating and the other a 5 star rating.
Reply to
Ashton Crusher
Loading thread data ...

CU (CR) does not use these results for anything. They do their own surveys which find that some cars are much more reliable than other over the course of 5+ years. The differences are not trivial.

JDP is a joke.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

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.