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

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

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

The natural assumption is that a car with fewer initial defects will also have fewer problems down the road (both figuratively and literally) and is of higher quality.

Nine problems per 100 vehicles (the difference between 2009 and 2010 scores for Toyota) might not be below the noise floor. There are statistical measurements of that, like standard deviation. However, one other thing that needs to be remembered is that over the last couple of years, the costumer base for all automakers changed faster than normal. Toyota's changes were brought by both a changing mix of vehicles (particularly the Prius) and reports of people hitting the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal or the gas pedal getting stuck under carpets. GM's and Ford's sales are changing because they are closing brands. In addition, the overall mix of vehicles sold has changed due to changes in the gas prices (particularly two years ago), the clunker program (what a stupid idea that was), the economy in general, and GM's and Chrysler's financial problems.

I don't think the metric are totally useless. Ford is building a pretty good track record of reliable cars, just like Honda and Toyota have (and, IMHO, earned). I have had two excellent Ford cars and am thinking about trading in my 2008 Ford Focus for a 2010 model, if I can do it cheaply enough (otherwise, I will wait for the European model in '11 or '12).

If the car makers built the exact same cars for many years (the Model T, VW Bug and Peugeot 504 were all built for over 20 years with basically the same design and model), then you can get an good idea of how reliable a new one would be. But, you would never get any new technology, like improved crash-worthiness, better emissions controls, etc.

So there is always a trade-off between ignorance about projecting repair rates and advancing technology. If I am not mistaken, small aircraft engines still use magneto technology because the aircraft companies are afraid of the liability if the engines stop working mid-air and because the magneto engines, when maintained properly, are very reliable.

So the aircraft companies have chosen to maintain proven dependability.

Jeff

What do you mean by the last sentence? If the brakes fail within the first

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

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

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

The thing is, this has repeatedly turned out not to be the case, especially when the initial defect levels are all so low to begin with. Perhaps it is better than nothing, but not very much so.

--scott

the above is a false assumption. a really dumbed down example is this: have you ever encountered the exploding chinese capacitor problem in electronics? to the consumer, there is no difference in initial quality. but a few months down the road, when they literally go "BANG", you'll discover why the initial quality, which was prima facie perfectly adequate, was in fact no indicator of subsequent performance.

same for cars, "initial build quality" makes no differentiation between one vehicle with cheapo chinese bearings [for example] and another with quality american. but you sure are going to know it a few thousand miles down the road when one needs replacing and the other will keep going for another few hundred thousand miles.

In message , jim beam writes

Those final two words were an oxymoron.

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