17th Mar 2009, 10:24
Very well, how about let's put this to rest and actually read these articles.
Per the report from JD power short term reliability ratings: Problems per vehicle by brand:
Lexus: 120
Mercury: 151
Cadillac: 155
Toyota: 159
Acura: 160
Buick: 163
BMW: 164
Lincoln:165
Honda: 177
Ford: 204
Infiniti: 204
Audi: 207
Chrysler: 229
Chevrolet: 239
In that regard, Toyota, Honda and their luxury entries are ahead of Ford. Not by a huge margin, which definitely shows some improvement, but still by enough to show a clear winner. Mercury also did quite well, which isn't surprising given 50% of their lineup are re-badged Mazdas. I will give kudos to Cadillac, who for once builds a halfway decent car and will hopefully do better if GM survives.
But the problem with this report again is that it is a short term report. The test was for a 3 year time period. Most people I know keep cars for at least 10-12 years, and if you're going to have problems with a car, it tends to be once the car starts to age. This is where the importance of long term reliability comes in, which in my opinion is a lot more telling in regards to overall quality.
Consumer reports actually does long term reliability ratings with more comprehensive testing of electrical and mechanical systems. Their findings were:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435712
In other words, much of what has already been said before, which is that overall, Honda and Toyota makes a better product than Ford, GM, and definitely Chrysler. Of course some of Ford's products do well competing against the Japanese automakers, but as the report said, it is really hit and miss, which is exactly the problem domestic automakers have had for decades. You might get a "good" one but you're just as likely to get junk as well.
So to summarize, why would a consumer make a dicey decision buying a product that has a good chance of being faulty when they can buy another brand that has a significantly better chance of being good? Like I've told many people, I've owned nothing but Toyotas and have had no problems. Hence the no amount of reports showing mediocre performance and reliability from the big three compels me to make a switch when I already have my own "proof".
17th Mar 2009, 12:01
With all due respect, that really is a moot point.
The Japanese vehicles of the 80's and early 90's are completely different than those of today. The US federal government mandated that major changes be made to engine control systems in 1996 that reshaped the whole industry from there on out. As has been documented on earlier comments, the Japanese manufacturers, especially Toyota, had many problems developing those systems, and their delivered reliability.
By contrast, the Japanese vehicles of the 1980's and early 1990's, regardless of where they were made, were designed with tried and true technology that they copied from everyone else. Japanese auto manufacturers at that time had always shied away from developing any technological advances on their own because there was an abundance of vehicles they could copy from. It is a well known practice in Japanese industry to acquire the intellectual property of American companies to permit that technology to be sold in Japan, and then turn around and sell that same technology to Americans at a loss, making up the difference by inflating the prices of those items in their home markets, with the intend to put the American companies out of business. Name one major technological advance of any Japanese auto manufacturer in the 1980's through early 1990's. There are not any.
17th Mar 2009, 08:45
I wrote the comment providing the JD Power article giving Ford a higher overall quality rating than Toyota. I noticed the Toyota defenders are trying to discredit that article, saying it is only "initial" quality, not "long term" quality, etc. Yet, it is interesting how they emphatically take every other news source that reports favorably about Toyota in any capacity as gospel. I think the double standard these folks have is blatantly obvious.
But I do not let auto magazines do my thinking for me. I merely provided that article in response to a previous comment asking for one indicating Ford has higher quality than Toyota. I did not wish to it cause so much pain to the Toyota fans, as the truth evidently creates.
I personally put a lot more stock in personal experience and web sites documenting real ownership experience such as this one, Consumer Affairs, etc., not magazines such as Consumer Reports that are at liberty to skew the data to spin any outcome they want, and has likely been provided by people conditioned to report in a manner that agrees with the publication.
Subscribers who have been trained by the magazine may for example might ignore the rough shifting of a Japanese transmission (as many Japanese transmissions are), while lambasting the shifting of a domestic vehicle, even though domestic vehicle transmissions historically perform much smoother. Mind you, these people only own one vehicle, so they have absolutely no basis for comparison. That in and of itself is a fatal flaw in Consumer Reports methods, rendering their "results" a complete joke if you ask me. Yet so many people on this site promote Consumer Reports as an "expert" source. But look at the source of their data: normal people, not "experts" by their very own definition.
Moreover, do we really know what constitutes a "greater than average" vs. "worse than average" reliability rating at Consumer Reports? Could it be that there is such an insignificant difference, the margin of error caused by the altered judgment of subscribers to conform to the magazine's positions is a lot greater, such that a "much better than average" rating should really be "a much worse than average" rating and vise versa? We just don't know. The only thing a reader sees is red circles versus black circles, the perceived difference between which is damning. It is a very misleading way way to present data, which I highly suspect is intentional.
I have been around test and evaluation in my career for years and believe me, you can manipulate and twist data to make a test appear to have almost any outcome you want.
To that end, it is quite a significant testimony against Consumer Reports' "methods" that I and others who have commented here have had vehicles rated as "much worse than average" by Consumer Reports that have been absolutely trouble free, while friends of mine have had vehicles (Toyota's) rated as "much better than average" that have been woefully unreliable. Likewise, I also have to wonder why I see so many Toyota's broken down on the side of the road. Consumer Reports themselves even had to admit they botched the ratings of the 2007 Toyota's. I would argue they botched a lot more than the 2007's, based on my personal experience, and the countless problems we have seen on Consumer Affairs and this site.
So, I just do not take any of these "auto magazines," especially Consumer Reports, seriously. I'll go with real world experience any day.