2006 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study

[Variance]

2006 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study

Not too long ago, J.D. Power announced that they would be overhauling the way they evaluate car quality. The results of the revamped study are now in and can be seen above and at the following link.

Read "Redesigned Initial Quality Study..." @ J.D. Power and Associates

[CSpec]

Buick tanked pretty badly... how did that happen?

[trinacriabob]

If you look at it, it's just a matter of shavings. Buick had 1.34 problems per car to Chevrolet's 1.24 problems. Buicks have more complex things on them than do most Chevrolets. I suspect it was in the "power goodies."

Also, our 4 main car lines (Chev/Pontiac/Buick/Cad) outdid SUBARU. Right on!

[gerardo]

Jaguar did it pretty well!

[ZL-1]

Did they reprocess last year's survey to allow for comparisons?

Edited June 7, 2006 by ZL-1

[Cananopie]

I suppose the big dip in Buick's case came from the fact that they have two relatively new vehicles with new problems that might not be fixed on the first and second year.

I also heard the Rainier was having a lot of problems with seat malfunctions.

But I think it's ridiculous that Cadillac is still up there and Buick plummeted to below industry standard. This upsets me, it's one of the few things Buick really had going for it.

I can't believe Chevy, who has about 30 more vehicles than Buick has a better average than Buick, that's disturbing. Really what the Hell happened... Buick even uses the most dated and reliable parts such as the 3800 engine and 4 speed transmission.

[Clownzilla]

VW is not last any more! Congrats to them! . Anyway, somthing interesting to point out is the terrible quality of the Germans! They don't build them like they did years ago. Although, if I did not buy an American car I would buy a German car, the Japanese cars (no matter what it shows on this list) are still last on my shopping list (along with Korean cars).

Edited June 7, 2006 by Clownzilla

[ZL-1]

Re my post above: I just read the fine print saying results are not comparable.

Cananopie: Buick's 'fall' might have absolutely no meaning. We don't have last year's data treated under the new methodology, so no valid comparisons can be made between 2005 and 2006.

[jbartley]

Land Rover makes me giggle with glee!

[Jazzhead]

What amazes me is seeing Toyota at 104, and Scion at 140 (worse than ANY domestic nameplate other than Jeep and Hummer). Those cars are both sold under the same roof - does this survey have any credibility at all?

Consolation prize for Buick - the plant that builds the LaCrosse won the "Gold Plant" award for the second straight year. So where are the defects showing up - are they being damaged in transit?

Edited June 7, 2006 by Jazzhead

[jbartley]

What amazes me is seeing Toyota at 104,  and Scion at 140  (worse than ANY domestic nameplate other than Jeep).    Those cars are both sold under the same roof - does this survey have any credibility at all?

No kidding, wtf mate!

This paragraph is what makes me a little skeptical about their new "system":

"“Without considering both quality factors, one might fail to recognize vehicles that are, in fact, excellent in certain ways,” said Ivers. “For example, BMW vehicles have among the fewest defects and malfunctions, along with Toyota. But BMW approaches controls and displays in a way that creates some problems for customers, leading to more design-related problems overall than Toyota incurs."

[thegriffon]

No, that's just idrive. It's not a production fault, it's a design flaw.

[I hope GMRULES again]

No, that's just idrive. It's not a production fault, it's a design flaw.

Which would make you beleive that this whole IQS is a scam. An amazing car that has 0 defects might get a lot of complaints because the owners find things hard to use or understand, in my book that has nothing to do with reliability. No way in hell Hyudai is better than Toy/ Honda or GM for that matter, what's happening is more and more people are hearing good things about Hyundai and are buying their cars because of the price and or warranty and probably will not bitch about the smallest little things.

[capriceman]

how is a Solara considered a sporty car? can it even be in the same class as a mustang?

[sciguy_0504]

What amazes me is seeing Toyota at 104,  and Scion at 140  (worse than ANY domestic nameplate other than Jeep and Hummer).    Those cars are both sold under the same roof - does this survey have any credibility at all?

Consolation prize for Buick - the plant that builds the LaCrosse won the "Gold Plant" award for the second straight year. So where are the defects showing up - are they being damaged in transit?

Either something is happening in shipping the Scions or, more likely, the fact that it is an all-economy car lineup is the problem. I am guessing $15,000 cars are made more cheaper with more corners cut than your typical $30,000 car, thus leading to more complaints about rattles, etc. Other manufacturers have a much large lineup to balance out their few econoboxes. Of course, that does not apply to Land Rover or other companies who are having problems. All I know is that I have had zero problems with my xB.

Then again, the survey ranks the xA and tC as being in the top three of their respective categories.

[CARBIZ]

Okay, I am becoming very skeptical of the credibility of this survey. I cannot believe for one moment that Hyundai could go from nearly worst to near the top, unless they only received 5 surveys back.

Although about half of the names have stayed within their normal areas (like Chevrolet, Suzuki, Honda and others) the fact that that are some wild swings, like Buick and Hyundai concerns me.

Does anybody know how many surveys they actually get back, and what percentage of those sent out come back? Although it stands to logic that the proportion of disgruntled customers should effect all brands equally, I wonder if anybody has bothered to break down the proportion of people who respond to those who don't for each class of vehicle, luxury versus entry level.

I've heard the argument that a young couple will crucify Mercedes for the B-class because they expected perfection while the owners of Hyundai don't expect much so are thrilled when the car doesn't break down.

In any case, I am scratching my head.

[Variance]

Here's the 2005 study for comparsion's sake (for what good it'll do since the study was revamped):

[LTB51]

Okay, I am becoming very skeptical of the credibility of this survey. 

It is a horrible survey and it always has been. Now we know that the old survey was out by as much as 40% compared to this new one. They have added a lot of flowery speech to try to hide how inaccurate they were. And, the unsaid fact is that this current survey could be out from reality by even more than that.

Plus they haven't yet addressed the real problems with the survey. As others have pointed out, what is being measure by this survey is quite literally "impressions" which of course are not reality. And finally, it gives equal weight to the impression that the suspension is a little stiff as it does to an engine blowing up.

Plus now, in a slightly round-about way, they are rewarding companies who put less features on their cars (imagine an elderly buick driver complaining that the auto-up/down feature on the windows is confusing).

It is stupid. Plain and simple. I think too many people were ignoring how bad it was because they liked how the results are decidedly pro-GM compared to CR.

I heard some time ago that Hyundai dealers are coaching the buyers when they do their final car checklist. They go over the potential downfalls of the car so that the buyer does not view them as such. They paint them as inconsequentials or positives. When the buyer fills out the JD survery they no longer view them as a problem and therefore do not note them as such.

I also remember reading an article on here some time back where Scion's poor showing was related to AC which did not seem to get cold fast enough and a suspension that buyers felt was too stiff.

That JD powers states that "BMW vehicles have among the fewest defects and malfunctions" shows that they still aren't measuring reliability properly. Anyone who has a BMW or knows someone who has one will attest to how unreliable they are.

The emperor has no clothes.

Edited June 8, 2006 by LTB51

[LTB51]

Here's the 2005 study for comparsion's sake (for what good it'll do since the study was revamped):

It shows how inaccurate it was and hopefully reminds us that it still isn't accurate.

[LTB51]

Here's proof that I have too much time on my hands

Here is the 2005 ranking compared to the 2006 ranking, sorted in order of difference. A negative means the brand was ranked worse and positive means better.

But good luck figuring out if it was due to quality, features, or dumb owners

2005 2006 Diff

BMW 3 27 -24

Hummer 10 34 -24

Mercedes 6 25 -19

Buick 4 22 -18

Jeep 16 31 -15

Audi 8 18 -10

Mini 25 30 -5

Saab 27 32 -5

Jaguar 2 5 -3

Land Rover 34 37 -3

Cadillac 5 7 -2

VW 33 35 -2

Lexus 1 2 -1

Mitsu 22 23 -1

Scion 26 26 0

Infiniti 9 8 1

Mercury 17 16 1

Subaru 29 28 1

Lincoln 14 12 2

Pontiac 23 20 3

Suzuki 36 33 3

Toyota 7 4 3

GMC 13 9 4

Acura 15 10 5

Dodge 24 19 5

Nissan 18 13 5

Chevy 20 14 6

Ford 21 15 6

Honda 12 6 6

Kia 30 24 6

Mazda 35 29 6

Chrysler 19 11 8

Hyundai 11 3 8

Volvo 31 21 10

Saturn 28 17 11

Porsche 32 1 31

Isuzu N/A 36 N/A

[regfootball]

wow, does this survey measure QUALITY or does it measure BITCHING?

[97regalGS]

wow, does this survey measure QUALITY or does it measure BITCHING?

EXACTLY!

[toyoguy]

Buick tanked pretty badly... how did that happen?

Among domestic brands, GM's Buick brand dropped to a tie at No. 22 from a fourth-place ranking last year, partly because its two best-selling vehicles are gone -- the Century and LeSabre. Cadillac also fell to No. 7 from No. 5 among nameplates last year. But the GMC and Chevrolet brands both moved up.

[Imaj]

Weird! But GM did well in the Survey, though Hyundai did better!

[carman21]

Buick's quality problems are more ue to the poor quality of the Rainier & Redevous and the subpar overall packaging of the Terraza. The LaCrosse and Lucerne are top notch. Fortunately, Buick will be replacing the Rainier & Rendevous soon with the exceptionally well executed and packaged Enclave. The next Terraza on Lambda will be dramaticcally better. The next LaCrosse will be excellent and the next Lucerne will be much better as well. Buick has nothing to worry about.

[VenSeattle]

carman21 - I'd say Terraza more than anything. The CSVs have been notorious for assembly problems. The Rendezvous has been out for years while Buick has continued to increase in scoring... until now. GM needs to drop the CSVs as quick as possible for the Lambda replacements.

[regfootball]

the lesabre was rock solid but was not with us the whole year

[Imaj]

Buick's quality problems are more ue to the poor quality of the Rainier & Redevous and the subpar overall packaging of the Terraza. The LaCrosse and Lucerne are top notch. Fortunately, Buick will be replacing the Rainier & Rendevous soon with the exceptionally well executed and packaged Enclave. The next Terraza on Lambda will be dramaticcally better. The next LaCrosse will be excellent and the next Lucerne will be much better as well. Buick has nothing to worry about.

That's a problem with GM! Half-baked models and the good models are not here yet!

It has been like this forever! Wait for the next models!

I'm a GM fan and I can finally say that there are better products in the pipeline, but why? Why aren't they here now?

[sciguy_0504]

I thought this survey was held highly in the minds of C&G members.

[roopull]

JD Power's Initial Quality Study is almost meaningless! It's IINITIAL quality that it measures.

If you want to see how reliable & well built a car is, either go with CR's reliability ratings - which tells you WHAT broke as apposed to this blanket something broke that the JD study does. In the JD Power study, a broken stereo knob carries the same weight as a blown engine!

If you're stuck on JD, however, their VDS or Vehicle Dependability Study is just like the IQS, but instead of being taken after a couple of months of ownership (how meaningless!!!) it's taken after THREE YEARS.

Edited June 9, 2006 by roopull

[Flybrian]

CR's ratings are also crap because they sample from their own reader pool.

[roopull]

CR's ratings are also crap because they sample from their own reader pool.

They may not be scientific, but they are specific... there's a definite benefit in that. And, while they aren't scientific, the numbers are somewhat consistent & they take the info from subscribers. If scientific polls are the only way to go, Al Gore is president.

[Flybrian]

They may not be scientific, but they are specific...  there's a definite benefit in that.  And, while they aren't scientific, the numbers are somewhat consistent & they take the info from subscribers.  If scientific polls are the only way to go, Al Gore is president.

CR's ratings are far from consistant. I can point out numerous examples where they predict a 100% brand-new car will be just as reliable as its predecessor only because it shares the same nameplate and then turn around with another 100% new vehicle and say its "too early to tell," then slaps it with a mediocre rating based on the vehicle it replaces, though they have nothing in common. In addition, CR - for all its claims of scientific valuation - puts way too much emphasis on subjective fields, like seat comfort.

One test I recall often for unfairness is a fullsize sedan comparison between a marginally-equipped Grand Marquis LS, LeSabre Custom, Bonneville SE, and old Avalon XLS. Avalon won (of course), but mainly because of standard equipment and ride quality. CR doesn't bother to take into account a comperably-equipped LeSabre Limited with Gran Touring or Bonneville SLE with sport package not only solve the ride and handling issues, but cost the same as an Avalon XLS. CR also knocked the Buick and Pontiac for trunk hinges, yet did not for the Avalon.

How many people subscribe to CR? Of those, how many people return the evaluation cards? Of those, how many are accurate? What is your opinion of road noise? What is your opinion of material texture? And furthermore, the sample pool is very limited. For example, how many Infiniti Q45s were sold in the past xx years? How many are owned by CR subscribers? How many are owned by CR subscribers who returned those surveys? The real number is likely unscientifically low.

[Snate]

CR's ratings are worthless.

[LTB51]

CR's ratings are far from consistant. I can point out numerous examples where they predict a 100% brand-new car will be just as reliable as its predecessor only because it shares the same nameplate and then turn around with another 100% new vehicle and say its "too early to tell," then slaps it with a mediocre rating based on the vehicle it replaces, though they have nothing in common.

It is my understanding that that is their methodology for new cars. If the a car is redesigned they predict the reliability from the old model. If it is a completely new model they say too early to tell. If they do it for all cars, that is consistent.

But it is important that readers understand that. Otherwise they could get burned like if they bought a G6 or a Cobalt thinking that they would have anywhere near the reliability of the Grand Am or Cavalier.

How many people subscribe to CR? Of those, how many people return the evaluation cards? Of those, how many are accurate? What is your opinion of road noise? What is your opinion of material texture? And furthermore, the sample pool is very limited. For example, how many Infiniti Q45s were sold in the past xx years? How many are owned by CR subscribers? How many are owned by CR subscribers who returned those surveys? The real number is likely unscientifically low.

How much of what you just wrote affects anything? The CR bashing by people who over-emphasize the "sample size" problem is getting a bit old. You point out that the sample size for the Q45 might be low, but you don't know how big it was or whether or not it was statistically acceptable. Plus how does a potentially small sample size for the Q45 affect the sample size for the G6? Or the vast majority of all other models for that matter?

Also, JD Powers suffers from pretty much all these complaints. Some of your complainst apply only to JD and not CR (i.e. "opinion of material texture"). But no one seems to complain about JD. Luckily now we know that JD Powers is so flawed that they really shouldn't have any remaining credibility.

[LTB51]

CR's ratings are worthless.

Reasons? Or just more FUD?

I find it funny that so many people blasted CR and backed JD. JD suffered from much of the criticism directed at CR, but for some reason that criticism wasn't directed at JD. And this, even though JD's methodology had many serious flaws that guaranteed it was not accurate (and none of which have yet been fixed). But who was pointing out that JD was worthless?

The real reason for the animosity towards CR and support of JD seems pretty transparent.

[Snate]

It is my understanding that that is their methodology for new cars. If the a car is redesigned they predict the reliability from the old model. If it is a completely new model they say too early to tell. If they do it for all cars, that is consistent.

But it is important that readers understand that. Otherwise they could get burned like if they bought a G6 or a Cobalt thinking that they would have anywhere near the reliability of the Grand Am or Cavalier.

Where is the logic in this? Anytime a new car is redesigned the reliability of it will be questionable simply because it has new parts in it that have never been used before. Both should clearly be labeled "too new to tell reliability" irregardless of the past performance of the nameplate or related ones. The name change excuse is lame at best.

Also, JD Powers suffers from pretty much all these complaints. Some of your complainst apply only to JD and not CR (i.e. "opinion of material texture"). But no one seems to complain about JD. Luckily now we know that JD Powers is so flawed that they really shouldn't have any remaining credibility.

The only comparison between the 2 is that some people will not mail the flyers back in to report on their cars. Other than that they are completely different. JD Powers randomly sends out surveys to people who own the cars...they attempt to get a diversified sample. CR does not...they simply survey their subscribers.

[Snate]

Reasons? Or just more FUD?

Simple...CR's methodology is incorrect. They survey their own subscribers. The only way to have a meaningful survey like this is if it is completely random. Survey people from all different demographics who bought a new car. Different regions, different ages, different income levels, etc. CR could care less whether or not 90% of their subscribers drive a Camry (probably close to reality anyway).

A similar scenario would be if someone surveyed what midwesterners preferred to drive and extrapolated that out to the entire country. I'm sure the average west coaster would not drive the same thing as the average midwesterner...but that is the same flawed logic that CR would use...hence why it is worthless.

I find it funny that so many people blasted CR and backed JD. JD suffered from much of the criticism directed at CR, but for some reason that criticism wasn't directed at JD. And this, even though JD's methodology had many serious flaws that guaranteed it was not accurate (and none of which have yet been fixed). But who was pointing out that JD was worthless?

The JD powers IQS survey is WORTHLESS because it just surveys the first 90 days of ownership. I don't think any company that couldn't screw a car together to hold for the first 90 days should be in business here. It's even worse now with the subjective "ratings" as half the stuff reported is probably things the buyer knew ahead of time but bought anyway and still decided to whine.

The 3 or 5 year long term quality survey of JD powers is much more important. It's pretty much a given that it will be more accurate and reliable than CR due to the correct methodology (random samples)