JD Power 2007 IQS

[Dragon]

http://www.jdpower.com/articles/article.aspx?ID=259

Lincoln placed 3rd, no GM brand placed above the industry average

Edited June 6, 2007 by Dragon

[Oracle of Delphi]

Hmmmm J.D. Powers likes my Big Prix!

http://www.jdpower.com/articles/article.aspx?ID=255

[aaaantoine]

Aw crap.

GM needs to get right on those quality numbers. It looks like they've slipped a bit over the past few years.

[bowtie_dude]

Wow...not one GM brand above industry average. EVERY GM brand got worse ratings than Hyundai and Kia.

What the HELL happened?

Edited June 6, 2007 by bowtie_dude

[Northstar]

the IQS is stupid, I'm not too worried... remember the H2 was the "worst in initial quality" because it like its gas too much. It would be better to be higher up, but I'd be much more worried if it was the long-term reliability study.

This sounds a bit arrogant, but I also think some of the people that buy the top brands (Porsche, Lexus, Honda, MB, Toyota) are usually a bit more snobish when it comes to cars and would refuse to say the car they bought had anything wrong with it, but perhaps I'm wrong. Notice that MB is 5th and Jaguar 6th in the IQS yet their long-term reliability is usually down the tubes.

[enzl]

Media bias watch:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/06/06/jdpa_quality/index.html

"Ford gets 5 top quality awards" caption on front page of CNN.com!

[VenSeattle]

A little history:

2007 IQS results:

2006 IQS results:

2005 IQS results:

Don't forget that JD Power completely revamped their IQS study in 2006, so the 2005 results aren't directly comparable because of the changes.

[bowtie_dude]

Its a black eye for GM, no matter how you try to spin it. Disappointing to say the least.

[bowtie_dude]

I don't understand how in 2006 several of GMs brands were above average and every brand fell below in 2007 while brands that were far below average in 06 were far above.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I'm surprised that Mazda is so far towards the bottom, I thought they were better than that.

[bowtie_dude]

I like how the subtitle says above Acura and BMW. Ford also ranked higher than Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, GMC, Saab, and Hummer. I'm really pissed off about this, if you can't tell. There's no excuse for this kind of backslide. I don't care if Acura is still far below industry average, they're not the ones I'm defending on nearly a daily basis.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I like how the subtitle says above Acura and BMW. Ford also ranked higher than Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, GMC, Saab, and Hummer. I'm really pissed off about this, if you can't tell. There's no excuse for this kind of backslide. I don't care if Acura is still far below industry average, they're not the ones I'm defending on nearly a daily basis.

Calm down old buddy, don't want you to have a stroke over this! :AH-HA_wink:

[bowtie_dude]

Calm down old buddy, don't want you to have a stroke over this! :AH-HA_wink:

Its just frustrating.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Its just frustrating.

Imagine how I feel, I work for GM.

[Z-06]

Yeah it is not a good thing to be below industry average. GM needs at least one brand in the top three period. I hate to see Cadillac lingering that much in the bottom.

[bowtie_dude]

Yeah it is not a good thing to be below industry average. GM needs at least one brand in the top three period. I hate to see Cadillac lingering that much in the bottom.

What confounds me is the drop from 2006 to 2007. What changed?

[6t5frlane]

I think this helps Ford a lot but really does not hurt GM too much. People will still be buying there Honda's and Toyota's,but may actually stop by and look at a Milan or Edge . Congrats to Ford for a "lets keep trying " attitude. There is some coffee brewing over at Ford and we will wait and see if GM smells it

[aaaantoine]

What confounds me is the drop from 2006 to 2007. What changed?

SRX got a MCE. This survey also possibly marks the first time the 06 DTS quality numbers have been reviewed.

Not to mention the 2007 Escalade, EXT, and ESV.

[bowtie_dude]

SRX got a MCE. This survey also possibly marks the first time the 06 DTS quality numbers have been reviewed.

Not to mention the 2007 Escalade, EXT, and ESV.

So the supposedly best vehicles GM has every debuted caused a DROP in quality ratings? Makes no sense.

[Dragon]

What confounds me is the drop from 2006 to 2007. What changed?

mass PMS amongst GM buyers?

[ZL-1]

Its a black eye for GM, no matter how you try to spin it. Disappointing to say the least.

qft

[Windy-57]

A couple of things to consider:

1. GM replaced a bunch of workers with their buyouts last year. The timing of that would coincide such that the first few models being produced by the new workers would be bought just before Power's surveys went into field. On the other hand, Ford had plenty of 2007s built before their buyouts were done.

2. In terms of quality trends, new vehciles (ones that were redesigned or received an MCE) usually score lower than those that have been around a while. After producing the same model for a couple of years, the plants usually have the little kinks knocked out. And, these little kinks make a big difference when you consider how closely the quality scores are. Point is that GM has churned out a lot of new models over the past year and is more apt to not score as well because of that. Still, I'd rather have a bunch of new models in the showrooms and a slightly lower IQS than have it be the other way around.

So, given these factors, I would expect GM to score much better next year...at least they better.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Windy-57

[bowtie_dude]

So, given these factors, I would expect GM to score much better next year...at least they better.

Quoted for truth.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually I am suprised Mazda scores so low.

What is more telling is to go drive cars that are 5 years old/100,000 miles. G.M. products hold up better than a lot of other cars.

Chris

[enzl]

Actually I am suprised Mazda scores so low.

What is more telling is to go drive cars that are 5 years old/100,000 miles. G.M. products hold up better than a lot of other cars.

Chris

GM's are about average...the Small volume imports fair worse, Honda & Toyota's a little better.

True test will be the current gen of product for the home teams.

[plane]

Let's get down to business, shall we?

Where are the confidence intervals?

Statistics provided at, preferably the 99% confidence level or better.

The numbers are statistically meaningless without that information.

What are the intra and inter-model and make correlations?

Are we looking at real data or just differences in noise level due to sample size effects?

What about sampling bias **cough** Consumer Reports **cough**

And to the matter at heart, what is the strict definition of a "problem"?

I laugh a little inside everytime I see an import fan trumpet what appear to be quite meaningless numbers.

"I'm not sure whether I'm right 1 times out of 100 or out of a million, but it looks like if you own a GM, you will likely have 0.2 more "problems" on average".

How really meaningful is that 0.2 problem and what does that mean to the average consumer?

Edit: Just look at the 2007 disclaimer.

Edited June 8, 2007 by plane

[CARBIZ]

All of these studies only appeal to the bookworms and computer geeks. How many people on this board have ever been involved in one of these studies? The questions are inane, and some of the surveys are so long that I wonder how many people even bother reading most of them and don't just start ticking them off to get it over with.

The only study that could be accurate would be one that was totally random and forced - meaning, if you got it you had to answer it; otherwise, it is only pandering to the really pissed off and the very thrilled. Everyone else could care less.

I have always been skeptical of studies, but when Kia can go from the bottom to near the top in a year, well, now I am very suspicious.

[Ravenfreak13]

This story was on one of those big cable news channels. They said" Ford surprisingly moves up the list. Toyota and Lexus as usual stay on top while all GM brands fail to meet the industry average." HELLO??? Has no one seen the camry and its many problems!?

[Drew Dowdell]

I"m more interested in long term dependability studies....

[A Horse With No Name]

I"m more interested in long term dependability studies....

Exactly. In long term dependability I would bet serious cash that damned near any GM vehicle (Astrovan, Cavalier, Aztec, whatever you want to keep in the mix-keep them all in the mix) is probably more reliable than anything from Europe and equal to or better anything from Korea. Probably better.

Long term wise I am really interested to see where the newest generation of GM cars stack up.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

All of these studies only appeal to the bookworms and computer geeks. How many people on this board have ever been involved in one of these studies? The questions are inane, and some of the surveys are so long that I wonder how many people even bother reading most of them and don't just start ticking them off to get it over with.

The only study that could be accurate would be one that was totally random and forced - meaning, if you got it you had to answer it; otherwise, it is only pandering to the really pissed off and the very thrilled. Everyone else could care less.

I have always been skeptical of studies, but when Kia can go from the bottom to near the top in a year, well, now I am very suspicious.

When you build cars that last 90 days your problem level at 6 months is real low.

I can't imagine buying a Kia. I would rather have the Renault that Fly posted photo's of in the other thread.

Every time I gas up I try to ask the person gasing up next to me..."Hey, your driving a _____. How do you like it?"

I have yet to meet a happy Kia owner. They are absolute utter unimaginably $h!ty, $h!ty cars.

Chris