Toyota drags down new-vehicle quality average; Ford leads Detroit 3 gains, J.D. Power says
C. E. White
J.D. Power says
David Phillips
Automotive News -- June 17, 2010 - 12:01 am ET
UPDATED: 6/17/10 2:36 p.m. ET
DETROIT -- Dragged down by Toyota Motor Corp., the quality of new cars and
trucks sold in the United States slipped slightly this year -- the first
time since 2007, according to a study released today.
But Detroit's automakers -- helped by Ford Motor Co. and some of the
smoothest new-model launches ever -- have matched or surpassed Asian and
European rivals in initial vehicle quality for the first time, based on the
closely watched J.D. Power and Associates survey.
For the 2010 model year, General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler
Group averaged 108 problems per 100 vehicles, compared with 109 problems for
every 100 Asian and European vehicles, J.D. Power announced at an Automotive
Press Association luncheon here today.
Models such as the Ford Focus, Ford Fusion, Ram pickup and Buick Enclave
helped drive Detroit's gains for 2010, the market research firm said.
Among segments, J.D. Power said domestic brands lead rivals in cars and
pickups, while foreign brands lead in crossovers, SUVs and vans.
Ford -- with 12 models ranked among the top three in their respective
segments -- was largely responsible for Detroit's showing in the latest
survey. The Ford brand, with less than one problem per new model, jumped
from eighth place in 2009 to fifth this year -- its best showing ever. Ford
is the highest-ranked nonluxury brand in the survey as well.
Overall, GM's initial quality slipped, with all four brands below the
industry average, though the automaker had 10 models ranked in the top three
of their respective segments. Buick, with 114 problems per 100 models, was
the only GM brand to improve in the survey. J.D. Power said GM was hurt by
the launch of several new models such as the Cadillac SRX, Buick LaCrosse,
and Chevrolet Equinox and Camaro.
Chrysler's four brands all improved but still fell below the industry
average, although the new Ram truck brand scored just below the industry
average.
Industry slips
Overall for 2010, new-vehicle quality slipped industrywide to 109 problems
per 100 models from 108 in 2009. The results are based on a J.D. Power
survey of 82,000 new-vehicle buyers after 90 days of ownership.
A big reason for the slight drop in industry quality was Toyota Motor
Corp.'s Toyota brand, which slipped below the industry average for the first
time, to 21st place, with 117 problems reported per 100 models.
The publicity surrounding sudden acceleration in several Toyota models was
top-of-mind for many new owners of the brand's vehicles, J.D. Power said.
"Clearly, Toyota has endured a difficult year," said Dave Sargent, vice
president of global vehicle research at J.D. Power.
Overall, Japanese brands averaged 108 problems per 100 models surveyed, a
tie with U.S. domestic brands. South Korean brands averaged 111 problems and
Europeans 114 problems.
BMW's Mini was the most improved brand, and the Ford Explorer Sport Trac was
the most improved model. Overall, 18 brands improved and 15 brands declined
in the survey.
Detroit showing
For Detroit automakers, the results contrast sharply with a year ago, when
the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler underscored longtime consumer
perceptions about the quality of domestic brands.
"This year may mark a key turning point for U.S. brands as they continue to
fight the battle against lingering negative perceptions of their quality,"
said Sargent. "Achieving quality comparability is the first half of the
battle. Convincing consumers -- particularly import buyers -- that they have
done this is the second half."
The quality of new or revamped models continued to improve in 2010, led by
product launches from Ford, Honda, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Porsche. In the
past, new models, on average, experienced substantially more quality
problems than carryover models.
But in its latest survey, J.D. Power said more than a half of all models
launched during the 2010 model year performed better than their respective
segment averages.
At the same time, the initial quality of carryover and refreshed models fell
in 2010.
At the top
Porsche AG, which launched the four-door Panamera, was the top-ranked brand,
with 83 problems per 100 models surveyed. It was followed by Acura,
Mercedes-Benz, Lexus and Ford. Honda, Hyundai, Lincoln, Infiniti and Volvo
also finished above the industry average.
Last year, Lexus topped the survey with 84 problems per 100 models. Porsche
and Lexus have led the survey for the past six years.
At the bottom of the survey, with 170 problems per 100 models, was Land
Rover. Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Mini, Jaguar and Dodge also placed near the
bottom.
Sargent said the industry has nailed "the oily parts" of the car and truck,
with engine, transmission and chassis problems all but extinct. But new
technologies such as Bluetooth, navigation and cameras continue to stymie
automakers and consumers.
"The industry is still struggling to seamlessly integrate these features in
a way that does not frustrate consumers," Sargent said. "It can be anything
from a voice recognition system that fails to recognize commands or a bad
sensor that monitors tire pressure."
Read more:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100617/RETAIL/100619882/
C. E. White
quality survey is just that - how good a new car is. They are all
good...well almost. It is probably better than the crap Consumer Reports
prints, but only marginally.
The whole range is between about 1 problem per car and less that 2
problems.....I suspect the survey accuracy is probably =/- 1 problem.....
In a year things are likely to be completely different...
BTW, here is the list:
2010 IQS Nameplate Ranking
Problems per 100 vehicles
Porsche 83
Acura 86
Mercedes-Benz 87
Lexus 88
Ford 93
Honda 95
Hyundai 102
Lincoln 106
Infiniti 107
Volvo 109
Industry Average 109
Ram 110
Audi 111
Cadillac 111
Chevrolet 111
Nissan 111
BMW 113
Mercury 113
Buick 114
Mazda 114
Scion 114
Toyota 117
Subaru 121
Chrysler 122
Suzuki 122
GMC 126
Kia 126
Jeep 129
Dodge 130
Jaguar 130
Mini 133
Volkswagen 135
Mitsubishi 146
Land Rover 170
Read more:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100617/RETAIL/100619882/1424#ixzz0r8stEiCJ
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hvduju$b49$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Mike Hunter
build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2% failure
range for ALL manufactured products, that is why they all have a warranty,
even Rolls Royce. Differences of 1% are meaningless. EVERY manufacturer
is making great cars today. The only REAL difference among them is style
and price.
My advise, when people ask for my advise because of my experience in
building, selling, and servicing vehicles, is to test drive those three or
more that best suits your needs, then get a total DRIVE HOME PRICE including
selling price, dealer add-ons and financing costs, if you must finance, from
at least TWO dealers of the top two or three models you choose then buy your
vehicle from the dealer nearest you home that gives you the best price and
has the lowest shop rate.
It never made sense to me when I was in retail, why some people are willing
to pay 20% to 30% more for some of our brands because they thought they were
"better." Thinking you will not get one of the 2%, is foolish at best.
The odds are far greater that you will get one of the 98% that are trouble
free.
Personally, I run two cars (trade or sell the one that is two years old) and
get a new vehicle every year. I Email a list of what I want in the
vehicle, to the Group or Fleet Sales Manager(s) at numerous dealerships for
a bid price. Then I visit the dealerships that give me a price, closest to
what I know I should be paying for the car as equipped, and get a total
drive home price if I end up trading my car.
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hvduuc$clc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
dr_jeff
> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of overall
> build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2% failure
> range for ALL manufactured products,
Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I am
incorrect, prove it.
If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
hundreds of thousands of components. Buildings would be falling down all
the time, because girders would be breaking during construction.
If you were correct, then the average number of defects would be about 2
per 100 cars, not 100 to 200 per 100 cars, as it is.
This has been pointed out to you in the past. And you still don't
understand that 100 problems per 100 vehicles is a not a 2% failure rate.
> that is why they all have a warranty,
> even Rolls Royce. Differences of 1% are meaningless. EVERY manufacturer
> is making great cars today.
Maybe they all make some good cars, but not all cars are great.
> The only REAL difference among them is style
> and price.
Really?
> My advise, when people ask for my advise because of my experience in
> building, selling, and servicing vehicles, is to test drive those three or
> more that best suits your needs, then get a total DRIVE HOME PRICE including
> selling price, dealer add-ons and financing costs, if you must finance, from
> at least TWO dealers of the top two or three models you choose then buy your
> vehicle from the dealer nearest you home that gives you the best price and
> has the lowest shop rate.
>
> It never made sense to me when I was in retail, why some people are willing
> to pay 20% to 30% more for some of our brands because they thought they were
> "better."
Gee buying something better for 20% or 30% more is a good idea, if it is
better. I paid a lot more for my Apples than I would have for HP's or
Dells, but I got better computers. I definitely got a better buy with
more more expensive Apple than had I bought a cheaper HP or Dell.
> Thinking you will not get one of the 2%, is foolish at best.
What 2%? Just about all cars have defects, with defects around 100 per
100 vehicles.
You didn't know what you were talking about before.
And you don't know what you're talking about now.
> The odds are far greater that you will get one of the 98% that are trouble
> free.
Really? Very few cars are totally trouble free. The average number of
defects per car is about one defecte per car (108 defects per 100 cars).
http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2010099
> Personally, I run two cars (trade or sell the one that is two years old) and
> get a new vehicle every year. I Email a list of what I want in the
> vehicle, to the Group or Fleet Sales Manager(s) at numerous dealerships for
> a bid price. Then I visit the dealerships that give me a price, closest to
> what I know I should be paying for the car as equipped, and get a total
> drive home price if I end up trading my car.
Good for you.
Gordon McGrew
>Mike Hunter wrote:
>> My advise, when people ask for my advise because of my experience in
I hate to be the rammer police but since you made the same mistake
twice in one line... 'Advise' is a verb. 'Advice' is a noun.
>> building, selling, and servicing vehicles, is to test drive those three or
>> more that best suits your needs, then get a total DRIVE HOME PRICE including
>> selling price, dealer add-ons and financing costs, if you must finance, from
>> at least TWO dealers of the top two or three models you choose then buy your
>> vehicle from the dealer nearest you home that gives you the best price and
>> has the lowest shop rate.
>>
>> It never made sense to me when I was in retail, why some people are willing
>> to pay 20% to 30% more for some of our brands because they thought they were
>> "better."
>
>Gee buying something better for 20% or 30% more is a good idea, if it is
>better. I paid a lot more for my Apples than I would have for HP's or
>Dells, but I got better computers. I definitely got a better buy with
>more more expensive Apple than had I bought a cheaper HP or Dell.
Not to mention that Mike is a big fan of trading in cars every couple
years. Depreciation is more important than initial price when you do
that. Of course it is stupid to trade in cars that frequently but if
you are going to do that, you better pick ones with good resale value.
Generally that would be a Honda or Toyota.
Dave D
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:pfSdnW3IC5egM4fR...@giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of overall
>> build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2%
>> failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>
> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I am
> incorrect, prove it.
NO! You made the claim - ergo you provide the evidence to support your
rebuttal
>
> If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
> shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
> hundreds of thousands of components. Buildings would be falling down all
> the time, because girders would be breaking during construction.
Comparing the space shuttle and buildings to automobiles is apples and
oranges therefore, a worthless comparison.
>
> If you were correct, then the average number of defects would be about 2
> per 100 cars, not 100 to 200 per 100 cars, as it is.
>
> This has been pointed out to you in the past. And you still don't
> understand that 100 problems per 100 vehicles is a not a 2% failure rate.
>
>> that is why they all have a warranty, even Rolls Royce. Differences of
>> 1% are meaningless. EVERY manufacturer is making great cars today.
>
> Maybe they all make some good cars, but not all cars are great.
How very true. Not all cars are even moderately acceptable
>
>> The only REAL difference among them is style and price.
>
> Really?
>
>> My advise, when people ask for my advise because of my experience in
>> building, selling, and servicing vehicles, is to test drive those three
>> or more that best suits your needs, then get a total DRIVE HOME PRICE
>> including selling price, dealer add-ons and financing costs, if you must
>> finance, from at least TWO dealers of the top two or three models you
>> choose then buy your vehicle from the dealer nearest you home that gives
>> you the best price and has the lowest shop rate.
>>
>> It never made sense to me when I was in retail, why some people are
>> willing to pay 20% to 30% more for some of our brands because they
>> thought they were "better."
>
> Gee buying something better for 20% or 30% more is a good idea, if it is
> better. I paid a lot more for my Apples than I would have for HP's or
> Dells, but I got better computers. I definitely got a better buy with more
> more expensive Apple than had I bought a cheaper HP or Dell.
This is an opinion not a proven nor proveable fact.
>
>> Thinking you will not get one of the 2%, is foolish at best.
>
> What 2%? Just about all cars have defects, with defects around 100 per 100
> vehicles.
>
> You didn't know what you were talking about before.
>
> And you don't know what you're talking about now.
And you do?!!!!!!!! Since when? That would be a major change!!!
DaveD
dr_jeff
> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
> news:pfSdnW3IC5egM4fR...@giganews.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of overall
>>> build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall within the 2%
>>> failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I am
>> incorrect, prove it.
>
> NO! You made the claim - ergo you provide the evidence to support your
> rebuttal
Did you notice I did? There is a failure rate of 108 per 100 cars or
108% failure rate.
>> If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
>> shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
>> hundreds of thousands of components. Buildings would be falling down all
>> the time, because girders would be breaking during construction.
> Comparing the space shuttle and buildings to automobiles is apples and
> oranges therefore, a worthless comparison.
Not when the OP said that *ALL* manufactured good have a 2% failure rate.
Correct. Except that because I work better with my Apple than a Dell, it
is a lot of money that is well spent.
Ray
>
>If every manufactured product had a 2% failure range, then the space
>shuttle would never have gotten off the ground, because it is made from
>hundreds of thousands of components.
>
That is 2% for the total system. Richard Feynman predicted that the
space shuttle would have that sort of failure. He was proved correct
when they have crashed in about 1 in 50 missions.
dr_jeff
Look at how many missions were delayed because of problems with the
computers, motors, fuel leaks, etc. It is far higher than 2% of the
missions.
Jeff
Stewart
>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of
>> overall build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall
>> within the 2% failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>
> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I
> am incorrect, prove it.
A 2% failure rate would be the death of most all medical devices.
Even a 2% complaint rate could lead to a recall (not every complaint
is a failure, but all need to be investigated and probable root cause
established).
That would be a better computer for you, probably not a better
computer for me (even though I prefer them).
>
>> Thinking you will not get one of the 2%, is foolish at best.
>
> What 2%? Just about all cars have defects, with defects around 100
> per 100 vehicles.
>
> You didn't know what you were talking about before.
>
> And you don't know what you're talking about now.
>
>> The odds are far greater that you will get one of the 98% that are
>> trouble free.
>
> Really? Very few cars are totally trouble free. The average number
> of defects per car is about one defecte per car (108 defects per 100
> cars).
> http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2010099
>
I've had one that I know of that was taken care of by the tranny
recall. Of course, some may a different perception of what a defect
is.......they all get counted, even the phantom defects.
>> Personally, I run two cars (trade or sell the one that is two years
>> old) and get a new vehicle every year. I Email a list of what I
>> want in the vehicle, to the Group or Fleet Sales Manager(s) at
>> numerous dealerships for a bid price. Then I visit the
>> dealerships that give me a price, closest to what I know I should
>> be paying for the car as equipped, and get a total drive home price
>> if I end up trading my car.
>
> Good for you.
Yes....I usually pay cash and drive it until the wheels fall
off....(figuratively speaking).
Kevin Bottorff
news:JdSdnYHLZ_m52obR...@giganews.com:
> Dave D wrote:
>> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:pfSdnW3IC5egM4fR...@giganews.com...
>>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>> The problems that may show up early on are the best indicator of
>>>> overall build quality, but the fact remains ALL vehicles fall
>>>> within the 2% failure range for ALL manufactured products,
>>> Bull. Not ALL manufactured products have a "2% failure range." If I
>>> am incorrect, prove it.
>>
>> NO! You made the claim - ergo you provide the evidence to support
>> your rebuttal
>
> Did you notice I did? There is a failure rate of 108 per 100 cars or
> 108% failure rate.
your math is pathetic. that is a little over one per car, which is
just over 1% KB
Gordon McGrew
Exactly. 2% was the catastrophic failure rate. And that was 2% of
all missions, not 2% of all shuttles. Fully 40% of the shuttles were
lost.