2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases...asp?ID=2003050

Re: 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

"George G" <aol@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZhFOa.244$5o5.226504@news1.news.adelphia.net. ..
> http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases...asp?ID=2003050

How is possible that Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Mercury rank in the top
10 nameplates? I'm glad to see that GM has made considerable strides in
quality, but how can those brands rank so far above their sister vehicles?

For example (problems per 100 vehicles):
179 Buick
272 Chevrolet
293 Pontiac

It has me scratching my head and wondering if there are differences in
survey responses based on the age group of the owners. Since Buick has a
much higher age group than Chevrolet or Pontiac, maybe they don't report as
many problems or something. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Re: 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

Dean <noreply@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> "George G" <aol@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ZhFOa.244$5o5.226504@news1.news.adelphia.net. ..
>> http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases...asp?ID=2003050

> How is possible that Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Mercury rank in the top
> 10 nameplates? I'm glad to see that GM has made considerable strides in
> quality, but how can those brands rank so far above their sister vehicles?

It has always been my experience that JDPowers surveys tell you exactly
what you already know from television advertisements.

The car that leads the pack in quality is the one that makes the biggest
fuss about how good their quality is.

It's not a scientific study. It is heavily influenced by someone who just
spent a zillion dollars on the car that he thought was going to be great,
and isn't. But unless it's a lemon, he's going to pretend that his is just
as great as everyone else's.

Re: 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

<dold@2003XVehic.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:befn3i$usc$7@blue.rahul.net...
> The car that leads the pack in quality is the one that makes the biggest
> fuss about how good their quality is.
>
> It's not a scientific study. It is heavily influenced by someone who just
> spent a zillion dollars on the car that he thought was going to be great,
> and isn't. But unless it's a lemon, he's going to pretend that his is
just
> as great as everyone else's.

I would have agreed with you in the past, but this year, Mercedes ranked
28th and Volvo 30th, below Chrylser, Plymouth, and Dodge!

Re: 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

That study was of 15 year old vehicles. Hardly indicative of
what if available new today and therefore meaningless, IMO unless
one is a used car buyer and can fiend a good copy to buy.
J D Powers 'studies' are designed to give every manufacture
something good to say about their product. Top ten, best in
class, most improved, best first 90 days you name it..
One pays big bucks to use their reports an advertising is
the reason they give every manufacture that subscribe to
their serve something they can use. With new vehicle it is number
of problems per 1,000 vehicles with used it in number per
hundred, but in no case do they list the severity of the
problems. Was the majority bad trannys or engines or were the
problems rattles or leaks? To get THAT information one must
subscribe and the cost is high. We once subscribed but found the
information to be useless in our fleet service business. The
facts are the problems with today cars are generally minor, as
opposed to twenty years ago. Every manufacture is building good
cars today simply to meet all the government regulations for
crashes, CAFE and long term safety and emissions requirements.
The only real difference among them is style and price as I see
it in our business. Shouldn't a Lexus have fewer problems than a
Corolla or a Chevy more than a Buck?




mike hunt



e3ee wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:39:06 -0700, "Dean" <noreply@fakeaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"George G" <aol@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:ZhFOa.244$5o5.226504@news1.news.adelphia.net ...
> >> http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases...asp?ID=2003050
> >
> >How is possible that Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Mercury rank in the top
> >10 nameplates? I'm glad to see that GM has made considerable strides in
> >quality, but how can those brands rank so far above their sister vehicles?
> >
> >For example (problems per 100 vehicles):
> >179 Buick
> >272 Chevrolet
> >293 Pontiac
> >
> >It has me scratching my head and wondering if there are differences in
> >survey responses based on the age group of the owners. Since Buick has a
> >much higher age group than Chevrolet or Pontiac, maybe they don't report as
> >many problems or something. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me.
> >
>
> Age and "class" of people will have an effect. Mature and more
> educated people will tend to drive a bit more conservatively, and
> perform the proper maintanence (essential!) on time.
>
> Another factor is the plant at which the car/truck was made. If you
> see the data broken down further, you'll see that the Canadian
> (Oshawa) plant makes cars with significantly fewer defects.
>
> Another (very minor, atleast to GM) factor is that Buicks tend to have
> more "conservative" engineering put into them, resulting in less
> unexpected issues.
>
> Cady, in 2000, all of the products are very mature (Seville, Deville,
> and Escalade only....well, theres the Catera, but thats very small
> volume).

Re: 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study
 

<MelvinGibson@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3F16BDCE.B1C2EC75@mailcity.com...
> That study was of 15 year old vehicles. Hardly indicative of
> what if available new today and therefore meaningless,

Huh?

> IMO

Nuff said...