|
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
B A R R Y wrote:
> 80 Knight wrote: >> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. > Did you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected > only trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built > trucks didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. J Thought that Toyota was going to buy Chevrolet, and the new car company was to be called Toyolet........... |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
B A R R Y wrote:
> 80 Knight wrote: >> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. > Did you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected > only trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built > trucks didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. J Thought that Toyota was going to buy Chevrolet, and the new car company was to be called Toyolet........... |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"LouieG" < >B A R R Y wrote: >> 80 Knight wrote: >>> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. >> >> Think about that statement again... >> >> For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle >> that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did >> you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the >> other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected >> only trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built >> trucks didn't have the problem. >> >> Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? >> >> I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will >> have similar situations. >> >> Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a >> big part of the latter. > J Thought that Toyota was going to buy Chevrolet, and the new car company > was to be called Toyolet........... OK, you have this coming... c'mere... *fwap* Natalie |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"LouieG" < >B A R R Y wrote: >> 80 Knight wrote: >>> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. >> >> Think about that statement again... >> >> For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle >> that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did >> you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the >> other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected >> only trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built >> trucks didn't have the problem. >> >> Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? >> >> I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will >> have similar situations. >> >> Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a >> big part of the latter. > J Thought that Toyota was going to buy Chevrolet, and the new car company > was to be called Toyolet........... OK, you have this coming... c'mere... *fwap* Natalie |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote: >still me wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote: >> >>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way >>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one >>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were >>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what >>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference. >>> >>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably. >>> There certainly is in people's minds. >> >> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are >> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception. > >In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence? IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial purposes.) Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until you read the general description of what they mean by a design problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due to poor location)." So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards to hand out. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote: >still me wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote: >> >>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way >>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one >>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were >>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what >>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference. >>> >>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably. >>> There certainly is in people's minds. >> >> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are >> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception. > >In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence? IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial purposes.) Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until you read the general description of what they mean by a design problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due to poor location)." So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards to hand out. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> still me wrote: >>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way >>>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one >>>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were >>>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what >>>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference. >>>> >>>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably. >>>> There certainly is in people's minds. >>> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are >>> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception. >> In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence? > > IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, > but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive > and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective > sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial > purposes.) > > Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: > > http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ > > Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary > to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall > Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. That's not inexplicable. It is easy to understand. JDP IQS is a rating of the number of problems people found in the first 90 days of ownership. I would think that Overall Mechanical qualtiy and design quality took into account other things than what people reported in the 1st 90 days. > Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 > design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality > areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the > design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat > Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you > ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the > seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and > sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until > you read the general description of what they mean by a design > problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features > may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., > overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due > to poor location)." > > So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a > less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly > tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is > the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to > sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards > to hand out. Who are their costumers? The auto industry. Jeff |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> still me wrote: >>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way >>>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one >>>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were >>>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what >>>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference. >>>> >>>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably. >>>> There certainly is in people's minds. >>> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are >>> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception. >> In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence? > > IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, > but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive > and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective > sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial > purposes.) > > Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: > > http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ > > Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary > to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall > Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. That's not inexplicable. It is easy to understand. JDP IQS is a rating of the number of problems people found in the first 90 days of ownership. I would think that Overall Mechanical qualtiy and design quality took into account other things than what people reported in the 1st 90 days. > Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 > design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality > areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the > design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat > Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you > ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the > seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and > sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until > you read the general description of what they mean by a design > problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features > may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., > overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due > to poor location)." > > So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a > less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly > tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is > the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to > sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards > to hand out. Who are their costumers? The auto industry. Jeff |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com... > IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, > but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive > and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective > sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial > purposes.) Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke. > Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: > > http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ > > Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary > to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall > Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. > > Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 > design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality > areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the > design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat > Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you > ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the > seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and > sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until > you read the general description of what they mean by a design > problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features > may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., > overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due > to poor location)." > > So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a > less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly > tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is > the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to > sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards > to hand out. You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article. Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than Ford models than the opposite. I do think it is interesting that you think JD Powers is biased toward Ford or GM, when the company has literally preached the Toyota gospel for 10+ years. Like any survey that depends on the honesty of the participants, the JD Power survey can't be 100% accurate. However, for you to criticize JD Power is not fair. When you allude to more objective surveys, I am guessing you mean Consumer Reports. The fact that CR doesn't sell advertising doesn't necessarily make them objective. They have to sell magazines to stay in business. If you start looking through the on-line consumer reviews section of their automotive section, you'll quickly notice that Toyota owners write 5 to 10 times as many reviews as Ford owners. This suggests to me that there are 5 to 10 times as many CR subscribers that own Toyotas as own Fords. So when CR reviews a car, do you suppose they might think twice before saying bad things about a Toyota? If they start trashing Toyotas, don't you think there might be a backlash from Toyota owners? Ed |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com... > IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, > but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive > and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective > sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial > purposes.) Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke. > Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: > > http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ > > Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary > to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall > Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. > > Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 > design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality > areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the > design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat > Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you > ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the > seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and > sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until > you read the general description of what they mean by a design > problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features > may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., > overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due > to poor location)." > > So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a > less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly > tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is > the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to > sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards > to hand out. You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article. Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than Ford models than the opposite. I do think it is interesting that you think JD Powers is biased toward Ford or GM, when the company has literally preached the Toyota gospel for 10+ years. Like any survey that depends on the honesty of the participants, the JD Power survey can't be 100% accurate. However, for you to criticize JD Power is not fair. When you allude to more objective surveys, I am guessing you mean Consumer Reports. The fact that CR doesn't sell advertising doesn't necessarily make them objective. They have to sell magazines to stay in business. If you start looking through the on-line consumer reviews section of their automotive section, you'll quickly notice that Toyota owners write 5 to 10 times as many reviews as Ford owners. This suggests to me that there are 5 to 10 times as many CR subscribers that own Toyotas as own Fords. So when CR reviews a car, do you suppose they might think twice before saying bad things about a Toyota? If they start trashing Toyotas, don't you think there might be a backlash from Toyota owners? Ed |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"B A R R Y" <beech23pilot@yahoo.com> wrote in message .. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did > you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected only > trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built trucks > didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. This is true, but the perception is by people that never drove or never owned one. The nameplate is what makes the difference to them. It has nothing to do with reality. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"B A R R Y" <beech23pilot@yahoo.com> wrote in message .. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did > you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected only > trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built trucks > didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. This is true, but the perception is by people that never drove or never owned one. The nameplate is what makes the difference to them. It has nothing to do with reality. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"B A R R Y" <beech23pilot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omgai.25870$JZ3.13274@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net... > 80 Knight wrote: >> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did > you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected only > trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built trucks > didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. I can agree with that, but like Edwin said, for some people, it's all about who's name is on the grill. Some see "Toyota Matrix" and 'ohhh and ahh', then looking over at the "Pontiac Vibe" and start nagging about what an awful car it is. I never did say people were smart. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
"B A R R Y" <beech23pilot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omgai.25870$JZ3.13274@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net... > 80 Knight wrote: >> Actually they are the same car, regardless of who put's it together. > > Think about that statement again... > > For an example that I'm familiar with, take the Toyota Tacoma. A vehicle > that _is_ the same vehicle, but is assembled in two different plants. Did > you know there have been defects that only affected one plant or the > other? My own early-production '05 Tacoma had an issue that affected only > trucks built in the NUMMI plant before a certain date. Baja-built trucks > didn't have the problem. > > Why would you think the Vibe / Matrix would be different? > > I'll bet any manufacturer that makes vehicles in multiple locations will > have similar situations. > > Defects can be design or assembly defects. Who assembles a product is a > big part of the latter. I can agree with that, but like Edwin said, for some people, it's all about who's name is on the grill. Some see "Toyota Matrix" and 'ohhh and ahh', then looking over at the "Pontiac Vibe" and start nagging about what an awful car it is. I never did say people were smart. |
Re: Ford Beats Toyota in Quality for 2007
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote: >alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.gm,alt. autos.nissan,alt.autos.honda >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com.. . > >> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is, >> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive >> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective >> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial >> purposes.) > >Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke. > >> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site: >> >> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/ >> >> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary >> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall >> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality. >> >> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3 >> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality >> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the >> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat >> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you >> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the >> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and >> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until >> you read the general description of what they mean by a design >> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features >> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., >> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due >> to poor location)." >> >> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a >> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly >> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is >> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to >> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards >> to hand out. > >You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you >referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never >used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company >Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the >text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top >model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this >year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were >the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article. >Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top >rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was >incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles >than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than >Ford models than the opposite. This (112 v 120) is what I hate about the way they present this data. You look at those numbers and people think WOW, 120 is a LOT more then 112. Or if you look at the bigger list you'll find some models with 101 problems to compare to the one with 120. And the consumer is left with the impression there is this HUGE difference of 19 points between these cars and will most likely be thinking "If I by the ACME sedan I'll have 19 more problems then if I buy the SQUAT Coupe. But what it really means is that the ONE ACME vehicle he buys will have 1.2 problems to worry about and the SQUAT will have 1.01 problems. What's that mean in practical terms? It means SQUAT, i.e., nothing. He'll need to take either car back to the dealer to get the problem fixed. It maybe, might, possibly mean that over the course of a couple years the ACME will go back to the shop 2 times and the SQUAT will go back 3 times. Or depending on what breaks and when, they both may only go back 2 times. So the bottom line for the vast majority of car buyers is that all these cars are pretty much the same as far as how much "trouble" they are going to have in terms of these JDPowers figures. It's only if you compare the cars on the tail end of the distribution, one with a rating of 73 to one with a rating of 130 that there is really enough difference in "quality" that it should matter to a buyer. But CU and the like are taking these trivial differences for the vast majority of cars and turning the trivial into the difference between giving one a 2 star rating and the other a 5 star rating. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands