Nissan, Hummer vault up in quality study
Dale Jewett
CLICK HERE FOR TABLES, AND PREVIOUS J.D. POWER QUALITY REPORTS
DETROIT -- Nissan and Hummer roared back from dismal performances a year ago to post double-digit gains on the closely watched Initial Quality Study from J.D. Power and Associates.
Lexus maintained its spot at the top of the ranking of quality after 90 days of ownership with a score of 81 problems per 100 vehicles, a 6.9-percent gain from last year. BMW and Audi vaulted into the top 10 this year, displacing Honda and Mercury.
The industry average of 118 problems per 100 vehicles was a slight gain from last year's average of 119 problems per 100 vehicles, according to the study released Wednesday.
Toyota Motor Corp. continued its dominance of the study, having the top-rated vehicle in 10 of 18 segments. The Lexus SC 430 was the highest-rated vehicle in the study at 54 problems per 100 vehicles. Its plant in Tahara, Japan, which builds the Lexus GS 300/430 and LS 430, repeated as the top-rated factory for quality.
General Motors' vehicles claimed top honors in five vehicle segments.
"The industry performance this year remains pretty flat, but that kind of stuff is not uncommon," said Neal Oddes, senior director of research for J.D. Power and Associates in Westlake Village, Calif. "It's happened twice before in the (19-year) history of the study. Both times before, we saw a dramatic improvement the next year."
Hummer climbs the mountain
Hummer, which finished last in the 2004 study with a score of 173 problems per 100 vehicles, vaulted into a tie for 10th place on the 2005 study. Hummer's 2005 score of 110 problems per 100 vehicles equaled that of Korean automaker Hyundai, which was the surprise performer last year.
Toyota's youth-oriented Scion brand also posted a gain, scoring at 134 problems per 100 vehicles this year vs. 158 problems per 100 last year.
The study asks owners to rate vehicle quality on 135 attributes. Last year, Hummer officials complained that their vehicles were downgraded on factors such as fuel-economy, which they argued was not a quality measure.
Oddes noted that Hummer's scores improved this year on 76 of the 135 attributes, but its score on fuel economy was unchanged.
"Hummer made big improvements on moldings and wind noise," Oddes said. "The study hasn't changed since 1998. That kind of increase can't be just on fuel consumption."
Crisis fixes quality
Nissan's crisis mentality in the wake of last year's rating of 154 problems per 100 vehicles paid off. The automaker rushed 200 engineers from Japan to its new assembly plant in Canton, Miss., to fix problems with the Quest minivan, Titan pickup and Armada SUV.
The result: Nissan rated at 120 problems per 100 vehicles on the new study, just under the industry average of 118 problems per 100 vehicles and tied with Jeep and Mercury. The 2005 Quest improved its rating by 104 problems per 100 vehicles, J.D. Power said. The company does not release the scores of any individual model.
Oddes said he was impressed that automakers are improving vehicle quality at launches. He noted that two new vehicles, the Hyundai Tucson sport wagon and Ford Mustang coupe, ranked among the top three vehicles in their segments even though they were new models in their first year of production.
GM swept J.D. Power and Associates' ranking of plant quality for North and South America, with its Oshawa, Canada, No. 1 and No. 2 plants and the plant in Hamtramck, Mich. The ranking displaced GM's Grand River plant in Lansing, Mich., as the top rated plant, and Ford Motor Co.'s Wixom, Mich., plant as third ranked.
You may e-mail Dale Jewett at djewett@crain.com Initial Quality by nameplate, 2005 vs. 2004
Measured in problems per 100 vehicles
2005 2004
Lexus 81 Lexus 87
Jaguar 88 Cadillac 93
BMW 95 Jaguar 98
Buick 100 Honda 99
Cadillac 104 Buick 100
Mercedes 104 Mercury 100
Toyota 105 Hyundai 102
Audi 106 Infiniti 104
Infiniti 109 Toyota 104
Hummer 110 Mercedes 106
Hyundai 110 Audi 109
Honda 112 BMW 109
GMC 113 Oldsmobile 110
Lincoln 113 Volvo 113
Acura 116 Acura 117
Chevrolet 119
Ind. Avg. 118 Ind. Avg. 119
Jeep 120 Chrysler 120
Mercury 120 Dodge 121
Nissan 120 Lincoln 121
Chrysler 121 Pontiac 122
Chevrolet 127 Subaru 123
Ford 127 GMC 127
Mitsubishi 129 Ford 130
Pontiac 129 Mitsubishi 130
Dodge 130 Saab 133
Mini 130 Jeep 136
Scion 134 Mini 142
Saab 136 Land Rover 148
Saturn 136 Saturn 149
Subaru 138 Suzuki 149
Kia 140 Kia 153
Volvo 140 Nissan 154
Porsche 147 Mazda 157
Volkswagen 147 Scion 158
Land Rover 149 Porsche 159
Mazda 149 Volkswagen 164
Suzuki 151 Hummer 173
Source: J.D. Power and Associates

 

... ouch
despite improvement, still 2nd to last

 

You know, I can't help but wonder if all these "quality" and "reliability" studies really tell is how well people take care of their cars. For instance, how many of these creep up as "manufacturing defects" in the studies:
1) Fluid leaks due to oil changes at dealer/service station
2) Mechanical problems due to abuse (before or after purchase), failure to follow break-in procedures, or ignorance
3) Random pieces of car falling off due to problems with shipping, poor dealer care, bad car washes, or simply the owner being rough with it.

I really think a lot of these end up in studies because they are filled out by owners (read: people who are heavily biased and usually upset about high payments or how they were treated by the dealership). For that reason, I never really put too much stock into ownership studies aside from the ever popular "Would you buy again?" or "How satisfied are you with your purchase?" surveys.

Then again, that's just my view.

 

Hyundai and Ford haters take notice......

...two new vehicles, the Hyundai Tucson sport wagon and Ford Mustang coupe, ranked among the top three vehicles in their segments even though they were new models in their first year of production.

 

Ford didn't do too bad after all... reckon us rednecks now how to take care of a car

 

Yes...but Japan as always, kicks EVERYONE's butt...gosh, we invented the car and sadly we can't match with the top dogs. I am glad the US cars are doing better and I'm sad to see Mazda so low...it's really surprising to me since there is only 2 issues I have with my 8 and they are cosmetic...so no biggy.

Mazda...pay attention, you can't stay in the back of the pack like that. For those who hate on Nissian...take notice too...

 

Well I honestly can't say I'm surprised Mazda is that low on the list. My wife's 03 Mazda6 was replaced by Mazda because it had so many problems and my 04 8 with under 17k miles is in the shop once again with transmission issues. This will be the 4th time it's been in for transmission issues alone not to mention going in for power loss, hard starting and oil light coming on for no real reason. In 18 +- months of ownership my car has EASILY been in the shop for more than 2 months.

So as for Mazda quality/reliability I certainly will never buy another Mazda. Don't get me wrong I love my car, but it gets hard to love it when its constantly breaking.

 

Sorry to hear that, I"m with you...If I'm spending my hard earned money, you better give me a dang good product...PERIOD!

Note: It seems you got both cars in their first year...that's not always a wise thing to do, but I understand...sorry to hear that...

 

that stinks, I feel for ya. I had a 2000 SVT Contour with problem after problem but i still loved it so much! Would I buy another Ford probly not, a SVT Cobra.....maybe. Not even a rattle with the 8 though fingers crossed

 

By vehicle type

 

This study also just list manufacturers though, so one model may be absolutely amazing, whereas the rest of the models from that manufacturer may suck. If you take Mazda for example, the 8 may be awesome, but what if the 3, 6, protege, (even older models like the 7 or 626 or 323 or Precidia) are involved, it will bring down their score if they are prone to more problems. Also, with sale ratios, Mazda sells a helluva lot more 3s and 6s as compared to 8s

Just some food for thought

 

350Z is highest ranked "initial quality"? You've gotta be kidding me.

 

This is one of the reasons topgear runs their own "owner based" reliability study.

The manufacturer/company reports are flawed based on how they get their data. If a manufacturer cares about everyone having a functional car, and releases lots of TSB's to make sure everything is fixed, they are penalized for it.

If instead they hide issues and problems (ford/mitsu) through inter-dealer communication instead of publically available tsb's, they get higher scores.

 

No is the Mustang on the list....NO WAY!!!! I have driven one and while overall it has good quality...it's interior quality STINKS TO HIGH HEVEN (at the doors). The one I drove had a small gap between the metal of the door and the plastic panel of the interior of the door.

Pathetic...that's what I thought when I saw that gap, overall good...but that REALLY turned me off. I mean...HOW COULD THEY MISS THAT?

 

I think we may be confusing the definition of "Quality."

 

Yeah...I guess, define it please...lol

 

Subaru nor Mazda faired too well on the survey. I would imagine with Subaru and the RX-8 at least what they look at as lack of quality most of us look at as quirks. The flooding problems with the RX-8, all the reflashes, and with Mazda I'd imagine a lot of that comes from the Mazda 6 as well. My friend's 6S has been to the dealer countless times for annoying little problems, squeaky brakes (this seems common with Mazda), and a bunch of other things that I've lost track of. I bet a ton of the Subaru complaints are the frameless doors, they sound hollow and cheap and the windows can squeak as a result.

The idle on both our cars can be odd due to our oddball powerplants, if you're a new owner and didn't know this stuff going in you'd think there is something wrong with your car. The odd shimy and shake of the Boxer causes tons of new nonenthusiast Subaru owners to question what's wrong with their car on Subaru boards. I would imagine there are volumes more people that just assume it's a problem and don't even visit car forums.

Just take a look at Mercedes on this list, they're some of the least reliable cars on the road, yet they do very well with initial quality.

 

IQS is a joke. There are at least two problems with it:

1. It combines reliability and satisfaction issues. Though until I see the survey myself I cannot say exactly what is included.

2. The best brand has 81 problems per 100 vehicles. Mazda, among the worst, has 149 per 100. You have a single vehicle. How many problems are you most likely to have? ONE. With either car. You're just more likely to have that one problem with the Mazda.


Bottom line is that, despite what you read on these forums, the average car no matter what it is just doesn't have many problems during the first 90 days of ownership. One reason: many manufacturers now inspect vehicles thoroughly before they ship them to the dealer. Result: IQS isn't a strong predictor of long-term durability.

Now that I've got that off my chest I'll plug my own research. I'm not happy with the JDP research for the above reasons. And I think CR's ratings are too vague. What is the difference between "worse than average" and "better than average?"

In response, I'm going to be conducting my own reliability research through my site, www.truedelta.com. I'll be reporting very basic but clear info: times in the shop and days in the shop. To minimize the bias an earlier poster mentioned, people will only be asked about trips that occur after they join the panel. They cannot know how they'll respond at the time they decide whether or not to join.

You can read more details in my site. I hope enough RX-8 owners join so I can include it in this research. If anyone has concerns or questions, just fire away (but please read my info page first).

 

CR uses a similar system and rates problems per 100 vehicles as well when it comes to their reliability survey. They use the dot system as well but there are numbers behind it.

 

Yes, there are numbers behind CR's ratings. But we have only the vaguest idea what those numbers are. Through 2004 they had summary charts that at least gave percentages above and below average. In the most recent auto issue they didn't even have this.

The dots for individual systems are different than the overall dots; each represents a range of percentages of vehicles that had a "serious issue" (never clearly defined) with a particular system. I once calculated some rough totals based on these ranges. The results suggested that the difference between "better than average" and "worse than average" cars isn't very large, especially not in the first three or four years. "Much worse than average" cars do tend to be quite a bit worse than the others, but in this case even an estimate is hard to come by, as the MWTA system dots go all the way from 14.8% to 100%.

End result: the RX-8 received a "worse than average" rating. What does this mean? Two trips to the shop? Five? Ten? People are going to imagine wildly different numbers. Many will overestimate the actual number.

My goal is to report reliability information in terms that make sense, that are readily comparable, and that are not prone to distortion. I want the RX-8 to be one of the cars I initially cover because I'm going to own one a year from now. I just need the participation of a few dozen owners per model year to make this happen.

 

Can anyone list 157 problems with their car?

A hundred?

I dare you to list 25?

Come on you chickens........

 

Um... Those numbers are PP100 -- Problems per 100.

So the best car has 88 problems per 100 vehicles (or slightly less than 1 per vehicle). And the worst car has 171 problems per 100 vehicles (or slightly less than 2 per vehicle). Can you name 1 problem? 2? I'm going to guess that you probably can.

It sounds bad -- sounds like the Suzuki is twice as bad as the Lexus. And it is. But it's real easy to be "Twice as Bad" with you're only going from 1 to 2.

Simple fact is there isn't many problems with any particular make or model. You've got roughly equal chances no matter what.

 

You've got more chance of a problem in the less reliable makes. And you're probably going to take an extra trip or three to the shop over the first five years.

But people are paying thousands extra for a Honda or Toyota to avoid these extra trips. Partly because the number isn't clear. Many people probably think they're avoiding ten extra trips to the shop. Hence my research. I want to make it clear how many more trips to the shop your "less reliable" car gets than your "more reliable" one, so people can make better decisions.