Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





GM News, New Models and Market Share

1149014911493149514961576

Comments

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    That does shock me. After never doing that once in thirty-two years of new car buying this month, I wouldn't start now.

    In fact, I tend to avoid new and desirable models, even when they were Chevys, for that very reason.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I notice there's cash on the hood of the "new and desirable" Chevy right now. And not long after people were paying sticker for Hyundais. Not even Hondas, which also go for sticker sometimes. Hyundais were going for sticker, when GM can't get sticker for a Chevy (outside of the 'Vette anyway).
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    The Equinox was going for sticker when I bought my Malibu, in mid-'11. My wife wanted one, and besides my not liking the looks of it, the refusal to deal on them was another reason I guided my wife to the Malibu.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    What's funny about JDP is that some brands do well on IQ but not longer term 5+ year Durability (VW), while others are just the opposite (Subaru).

    I echo the post above that the post-warranty era matters more to me.

    Will be interesting to see if Chevy's good scores hold up in their longer term survey. I don't see a reason to think they won't. The trucks last forever and it is sales weighted.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,611
    Just that all those brands were below Chevrolet on J.D. Powers' three-year reliability survey, 2009 models, that was posted on this site maybe a week or so ago.

    Well that's not the only piece of data they can sell to the car companies. Ever read the disclaimers at the bottom of a car commercial:

    "What we are claiming is base on JD Power data of white vehicles with tan interiors registered in Tiny Town, ND."

    JD Power can pull out any piece of data on a vehicle and help the car maker create an ad around it.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    I think that's a slight exaggeration. ;)

    "Most appealing" is always kind of laughable to me, I'll admit that.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    For me the funny part was when they dinged Mini for a poorly designed cup holder. Then again, they do not measure reliability, they measure Quality and what they call Durability.

    I mean, it's not like the cup holder broke.

    They also dinged Hummer when owners complained about gas mileage. Hummers use gas very, very reliably.

    They're measuring different things than CR, that is for sure.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    edited January 2013
    I guess I thought it was 'reported problems', including mechanical things in their individual charts. Are you saying that mechanical reliability does not factor into the Power numbers? Extremely hard to believe, as you know. BTW, a broken cup holder would be 'interior hardware' on the CR survey.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,611
    I guess I thought it was 'reported problems', including mechanical things in their individual charts.

    JD Powers measures problems as "things gone wrong." It can be a defect or a design issue in the view of the person reporting the problem.

    Ford was dinged for Sync. Hummer was dinged for poor fuel economy. Porsche was dinged for dusty brake pads. All of these were reported as "problems" by JD Power although they all worked as designed.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    CR reports 'things gone wrong' as well. Somehow I do not believe that 'poor fuel economy' for Hummer ended up in Powers' three-year reliability survey. I don't believe you believe that either.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,161
    Saw that episode as well. Gotta say that I am in the minority because I think the new one looks better than the outgoing one... Looked good in red.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,604
    I think a better analogy would be that CR reports "things that break" (although too much orange peel in the paint or a mis-aligned interior piece technically isn't "broken") while JD Powers reports "things that people gripe about".

    Unfortunately, "things that people gripe about" is awfully vague. If I complain about my Ram riding rough, or my Malibu having a cramped back seat, or my Hyundai getting crappy mileage, unfortunately those get ranked right in there with engine failures, fuel tank leaks, cars stalling out, etc.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,455
    From your link...


    J.D. Power and Associates offers the following tips for consumers regarding vehicle dependability:
    Consumer perceptions of vehicle quality and dependability are often based on historical experiences or anecdotes and may be out of line with the current reality. Consumers should gather as much information as they can on the latest models from a variety of sources to make an informed decision.


    That's a good reason why readers should regard reliability rankings with some suspicion, as they're really an attempt to quantify things that aren't easily quantifiable.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,611
    It's part of their Initial Quality Survey:

    "Raffi Festekjian, J. D. Power’s director of automotive product research, explains that the IQS was designed to capture “things gone wrong” with a vehicle. Each one is called a “problem,” and it can be “either a fault in the assembly of the vehicle or a design issue.” A fault might be a poorly assembled door panel or a loose electrical connection, while a design issue is something that a customer doesn’t like—a multifunction cruise-control stalk, for example—even though the item is performing exactly as intended."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-trouble-with-jd-powers-initial-quality-- study-feature
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,455
    edited January 2013
    From your link...

    Part of the disconnect stems from most people’s tendency to equate quality with an absence of defects. Back in the Eighties, when Japanese car­makers were grabbing market share from domestic companies on the strength of their superior assembly quality, many of us thought of automotive quality primarily in those terms. But Webster’s concise definition of quality is “the degree of excellence which a thing possesses.” And the J.D. Power IQS has always taken this broader view.

    This is exactly what I was referring to when I stated the surveys attempt to quantify things not easily, or in some cases at all possible to quantify.

    Can someone define quantitatively a "great tasting steak" in a manner in which the general population would agree 100%? We can certainly define and quantify proper steak preparation and cooking methodology, but taste is subjective.

    More from the link...

    In a different vein, Porsche has struggled with brake-pad choice because of the IQS. The pads that deliver the best fade resistance and wet-braking performance are also those that generate more wheel-soiling, IQS-complaint–generating dust.

    One hopes that the customers who complain about the brake dust in the IQS are somewhat offset by those who praise the brakes in Power’s Automotive Performance, Execution, and Layout (APEAL) study, which is designed to capture “things gone right” about a vehicle. It’s attached to the IQS questionnaire, so it draws from the same population of respondents.

    Unfortunately, the results of the APEAL study don’t get the play the IQS does, suggesting that moves toward the lowest-common-denominator solutions to reduce design “problems” will continue. When a large majority of IQS-reported problems were defects, the survey was a powerful force in the drive toward automotive quality. But the gap between defects and design problems is closing. “In 2011,” according to ­Festekjian, “there were still slightly more defects than design problems, but it’s getting closer every  year.”
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,611
    This is exactly what I was referring to when I stated the surveys attempt to quantify things not easily, or in some cases at all possible to quantify.

    I'm not debating that. I was just pointing out that JD Power counts what one person considers a flaw (dusty brake pads) the same as a real defect (missing brake pads).
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,455
    I'm not debating that. I was just pointing out that JD Power counts what one person considers a flaw (dusty brake pads) the same as a real defect (missing brake pads).

    Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you. I think we're saying the exact same thing.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,372
    edited January 2013
    What I posted, is not the "Initial Quality Survey". It's the 'dependability survey' of 2009 models after three years. Not the same thing. Dusty brake pads? Not 'dependability'.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited January 2013
    The Hummer gas complaints affected the 90 day Initial Quality score, they said because it did not meet customers' expectations. For that GVWR label no Monroney was required, so naive customers had no idea what to expect.

    IMHO JDP is not even measuring reliability in that study.

    Not sure how the Dependability study differs but I'm sure someone will chime in.

    Mini is funny because they've been a the top of the APEAL study and at the bottom of the IQS study at the same time.
Sign In or Register to comment.