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

It is not random at all. They only survey CR readers, and then only readers who wish to respond. I've always felt this biases the results of the CR survey to match the editorial opinions of the CR staff. In recent years CR has done a better job of massaging the results, but I still think they are suspect.

And why do you think the JD Power survey is useless? It is a true random survey. They collect much more information than CR does.

And you know this because? Does it ever bother you that the results for different year model of a particular model that should be essentially the same parts get vastly different reliability ratings in some categories from year to year?

OK, what exactly do they mean.....I mean besides Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair and Poor. For '07 cars, the average problem rate for the worst category (Body Integrity) was only 3%. What do you suppose the accuracy of the CR Survey is? I'll bet it is a lot worse than 3%.

So, CR surveys a select group, that is more likely than the general population to agree with there opinions, they don't provide data on the number of vehicles of a particular type surveyed, or the even what average means, yet you think they are highly accurate.....

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote

J.D. Power also only surveys those who wish to respond. I can't see how the self-selection is any worse.

What motive would CR editors have to massage what CR readers submit?

"Editorial" is way too strong a descriptor for the quality reviews of the cars (not the matrices of reader experiences) that CR testers perform. The tests the CR staff does has results all over the map. Sometimes Ford gets a good rating, sometimes VW, and so on.

The reader surveys OTOH consistently rate Toyota and Honda as the best makes of cars.

but I still think they are

Not for Hondas and Toyotas, with the exception of an occasionally new design, like the Toyota Tundra c. 2004.

Sounds like you have been reading the articles. I do not have the April issue handy, but what the circles mean is described prominently.

See my post to Jeff. The "accuracy" of the CR surveys should be better than that of J.D. Power's dependability survey, because the sample size per model appears to be larger. (Neither JD Power nor CR give the exact number of owners per model surveyed.) You can still argue CR reader bias, I suppose. Though, come on, what does that mean here? CR readers are no more likely to ignore car problem than anyone else, are they? Or do we want to sample car owners who get a breakdown and ignore the car for the next two years? Or those who do not like to maintain their car? You do realize those who do not follow the maintenance schedule throw every damn thing off when it comes to surveys, right?

It's mostly going to be differences between two models that are statistically significant, meaning it's reasonable to conclude another car randomly chosen from a population of this model will perform X better than another model with a worse rating.

Nor does J.D. Power state exactly how much input it had for each model.

Plus, for dependability J.D. Power looks only at three-year old cars, by all indications from a sample arguably as self-selected as CR's.

Not true. For instance, for 2002-2006 Camrys, the quality of the suspension varied from very good to excellent from, almost at random. The fuel system went from very good to excellent to good without any significant changes to the design. So did the ratings of body hardware. For some reason, '03 have worse cooling systems that an other year (but according to the parts catalog, the parts are the same....). I suppose you are going to point out that chages from very good to excellent are trival, but then that is my point. The differences are trivial, probably well within the accuracy of the survey. CR takes poorly collected data (not random, poor questions), massages it, and presents it as little circles that really don't mean anything. At least JD Powers gives you a number (number of problems reported per 100 vehicels) and at least they start out with a random sample. I suppose you should stay away from any vehicle with solid black circles, but how many fall into that category? Do you really think there is much difference between vehicles that rate good or better?

A large but biased sample is not going to give better results.

Have you completes a CR survey? There is a fair amount of room for iterpertation of the questions.

So how much statictical difference is there between an Accord and a Camry? CR predicts a new Camry will have worse than average reliability. A new Accord will have better than average reliability. What does that mean? If I buy a Camry instead of an Accord am I likely to have one more problem, or two, or ten, or twenty? If you can't tell me from the CR predicitions, what good are they? At least if you look at the JD Power numbers you can get an idea that the spread between vehicles is very small, much smaller than CR's reporting methods suggests. In the latest initial quality survey, the difference between the best vehicle manufacturer (Porsche) and the worst (Mini) was 0.8 problems per vehicle. In the 2007 Vehciel Dependability Study, the difference between the most dependable manufacturers (Buick and Lexus) and the least dependable (Land Rover) was 2.5 problems. This shoudl tell you that the differences are down in the noise range, and the little circles that CR uses are trying to divide up very trivial differences into 5 categories. If you start with data that is poorly collected and then try to use it to indicate trivial distinctions, you are not being fair. At least with JD Powers, you can see for yourself that most cars are pretty good. I have no problem with people claiming Land Rovers are less reliable that Lexi, but I doubt the difference is near as significant as Lexus owners would like to think.

JD Powers starts out with a random sample. CR starts out with their subscribers.

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote

Oh my god, good to excellent.

I think the consistency of the almost all red (meaning good-to-excellent) reliability matrices for Hondas and Toyotas speak for themselves. Black circles are rare for them. I am not posting for your benefit. You're dug into a political belief here. I am posting for others'. Go to CR and go to J.D. Power. Just do not go to J.D. Power by itself.

You have proved no more bias in CR than in J.D. Power, either in its questions or in the group it samples.

CR's million owners surveyed per year over ten years trumps J.D. Power's hogwash 3-year-old vehicle survey of some

57,000 owners.

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.

Which hints at a big CR strength; presentation of the data. With CR you can quickly see the entire history of each system in each model. You can quickly spot the year they fixed the transmission or whether manufacturer X has problems with the first model year of a new design.

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.

And on Impala the range is from poor to very poor (mostly the latter.) Doesn't sound like there is any trouble distinguishing which of these vehicles has a more reliable suspension system.

And Impala ranges from good to poor. I think you are having trouble seeing the forest because all the trees are in the way. Step back and look at the big picture.

So did the ratings of body hardware. For some reason, '03 have

Have you ever heard of a bad batch of parts? Changing suppliers? To be honest with you, I am looking at the 2008 CR survey right now and

2003 Camrys are the same as 2002 and 2004.

With no breakdown of what those problems are.

None if you are dealing with Toyota or Honda. If you look at GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Kia, Nissan, Ford and VW, there is a wide selection of models to choose from.

Ed,

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you are unusually objective in your observations and descriptions of your automotive experiences, or at least you really try to be objective. (IMO, that is a good thing). The only point where I see less than an attempt at total objectivity is your point that one size truck is "just right" while another may be too large or too small. IMO, there is demand for the spectrum of truck sizes and capabilities and the profit opportunities they provide to the automakers. The reason for the demand may be totally subjective, like why someone who hauls 2 bicycles would need a full size truck instead of a smaller one, but the demand is (with higher gas prices, maybe was) still there.

I have no statistical basis for my opinion, but I think that people who have a favorable impression of a product are more likely to overlook a design feature or vehicle characteristic that they might not overlook in a vehicle that they do not have as favorable impression of. I think Toyota and Honda have benefited greatly from this phenomenon, if it exists. An example of this phenomenon is the piston slap that some people have complained about. The manufacturing and assembly methods that Toyota uses results in very little variation, and under the same operating conditions and maintenance history, 2 Toyotas of the same model are very likely to experience the same problems or lack of problems, which means that the noise that some people are complaining about and some people do not complain about is likely there in most, of not all of those models. People who love their cars or trucks are probably less likely to count the noise as a problem on the survey than people who are indifferent or are very picky.

I don't know about the JD Power surveys in this respect, but the Consumer Reports surveys show that Corvette owners love their cars but say they've been very unreliable.

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? ;)

----- Original Message ----- From: "SMS" Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.toyota.camry,rec.autos.makers.honda,alt.autos.gm Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:09 AM Subject: Re: 2008 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study: Porsche, Honda, Chevrolet among big winners

And you know there is a tiny margin of error because? CR may or may not have a "huge" sample for a particular vehicle. Saying "millions" sounds impressive, but millions (actually 1.3 million responses for

2007) spread over 10 years of different models implies that some models may only get a few responses (hundreds or less). CR doesn't include results below a certain level, but what level is that? The average number of respondents for a particular year/model is probably around 500. Do you really think this is enough to provide a tiny margin of error?

No, but it is my opinion that people who subscribe to CR are likely to be biased towards agreeing with CR's opinion and tend to color their responses to match. I am not saying they are lying, or deliberately miss stating the results just that they are likely to shade their response to match the CR opinions. When working with relatively small numbers of responses for a particular model from a select group (CR subscribers), small errors can appear to be significant when you boil them down to the little circles. In fact, I suspect that many times the differences are very small. CR seem to resist publishing the raw numbers. For comparisons, they go so far as to show difference as percentage of variation from average for categories of vehicles. This is potentially just as misleading as the little circles. For instance, in the small SUV category, the Honda Element predicted reliability of around 70% better than the average small SUV. The Dodge Nitro has a predicted reliability of 195% worse than the average small SUV. So no one should buy a Nitro because it is 265% less reliable than an Element - right? But what does this really mean? Suppose the average small SUV has 1 problem. This would imply that the average Honda Element would have 0.2 problems (or 20 problems per hundred) and that the average Nitro would have less than two problems. Furthermore, what exactly constitutes a problems? The CR survey leaves a lot of latitude to the respondents, and then they don't even let us know how they factor different levels of problems into the overall reliability.

So this means they have even less good data for a particular model, making it even less likely the statistical error is "tiny."

Ed

"larry moe 'n curly" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

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

"Gordon McGrew" wrote

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:

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.

"C. E. White" wrote

A little bit of homework is appropriate before one slanders. This figure is reported in the annual issue and also at the CR web site

"C. E. White" wrote

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.

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.

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

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

"C. E. White" wrote

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.