2008 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study: Porsche, Honda, Chevroletamong big winners

I think you should check the CR reliability matrices for the
Tundra (for one) in the last few years. IIRC I checked that
not long ago and thought, yup, this particular Toyota model
is no-good.

 

Please let me know wherer I can find the "numbers." I have the
magazine and an on-line subscription. I've nver seen raw numbers. It
is my opinion that CR does there very best to obsure the actual source
of their data and to over emphasize minor differences. If they
actually have the raw numbers available somewhere, maybe I would
change my opinion.

And then they don't tell you the numbers, instead they feed them to
some internal CR process that obscures the raw data and outputs
meaningless little circles. Plus, they allow the respondent a lot of
leeway in deciding what is minor and what is major.

Thanks for posting this. It confirms my worst fears. CR is making very
fine distinction form poorly collected data. The FAQ tries to spin
this as being useful, but clearly the little circles are even less
meaningful than I thought. In many cases they are giving vehicles a
poor rating based on a reported problem rate 4% greater than average.
There is no way the CR survey has an accuracy of +/-3% for most of the
vehicles listed (the typical vehicle has 200 to 400 responses; they
allow data to be reported with as few as 100 responses). This means
the little circles are at best worthless for many vehicles. I suppose
for high volume vehicles there may be some validity, but still the
difference between an excellent and poor rating is at best very small.
Probably so small as to be insignificant compared to other factors if
people knew how small the difference truly is. My sister just
purchased a RAV4, mainly because it had such good reliability ratings.
If I had told her it was at best likely to have 4% fewer problems than
an Escape, which she could have bought for thousands less, I suspect
she might have considered the Escape (especially since my younger
Sister has a 7 year old Escape that has been trouble free).

Actually I agree that my concerns apply to JD Powers is well. But at
least JD Powers gives you the raw data (problems per 100 vehicles).
From that I can infer that most vehicles are very close in quality. CR
on the other hand gives you little circles that imply great
difference, when in fact they are actually very minor in most cases. I
find this to be a misleading approach.

Ed

 

I didn't claim CR openly lied about reliability. Even CR doesn't have
enough guts to make excuses for that turkey. Ditto for the V6 Camry.
Some things are just to bad to cover-up. I was complaining about the
Yaris getting a an excellent reliability rating when it is a new
model, with no substantial history. I see the FAQ covers this (or is
it excuses this?).

Ed



Ed

 

We discussed this already. Look at the key for the circles
in the April issue.

The notion that what the CR circles tell us are the
/differences between/ models, and not a statistically
meaningful problem rate for each model-year, is not easy for
a lot of people to grasp. Yet it's a well-known statistical
concept. Most often it's the /difference/ in two averages
that is most meaningful, and not the averages themselves.

 

They look at other vehicles with similar engines and other major
components, as well as the history of the company's reliability for
other models.

 

They're not asking, "How do you like it?" They are asking a different
question, "How many problems have you had with it?" I could just love my
new Prius even though I had a problem with the power steering pump, a
leak in the truck and a cracked windshield. Or I might hate it even
though it has had no problems.

 

Is THAT why you are no longer his roommate?

 

True, my post was a little incomplete. See my response to Ed White on the
same point.

 

Actually, they probably only have 3 - 6K on the car as the average new
model is only three months old when the survey is completed. As
someone said, you might be able to determine it is terrible that
quick, but it is too soon to know if it is great. That first year
record is the equivalent of the JDP initial quality survey except JDP
mixes reliability questions with fuzzy stuff like how the dealer
treats you.

Why does Toyota give Yaris a solid prediction based on little
evidence? You would have to ask them but I suspect that they looked
at the first year results and compared them to older Toyotas that had
similar first year reliability and decided that Yaris would likely be
very good.

Sounds like a wild theory to me. If the water pump broke, the water
pump broke. Even at the height of their popularity, the monster SUVs
never were rated reliable by their smug owners.

First of all, the first year reliability ratings on Focus aren't as
good as most Toyotas. Second, the prediction is based on all model
years available, not just results for the most recent model year
(which we agree doesn't mean much.) Focus reliability has been
mediocre over the years.

They apparently decided that there were too many unknowns for the new
design. If they had based a prediction on past experience with the
Focus, it probably would have gotten an empty circle.

I think they base it on three years if available. I seem to recall
them noting when a prediction was based on only a single year's
survey.

 

FOAD, jerk.

 

But the only reason you know it is a "turkey" is because CR told you
it was. Up until 2006, the Camry has an excellent reliability record.
If there was bias in the system, how was the poor reliability of 2006
and 2007 models spotted so quickly? Same thing with the 2007 Tundra.
Both of the vehicles received high marks in testing. There was no
reason fro the owners to suddenly turn on them. They just
independently reported the troubles they had and when the results were
tallied, they had a relatively poor level of reliability that was very
surprising for a Toyota product. There is no reason to suspect that
the results are not accurate.

AFAIK, no one even suspected that Toyota quality was slipping until CR
reported this. That says to me that they could easily have covered it
up if they chose.

Predicting excellent reliability on a new model when the "manufacturer
has a track record of consistently outstanding (above average)
reliability" doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

used to believe in JD Power but porsche?

puuurleeese - new short engine at each service?

 

Consumer Reports isn't the authoritative survey, but because it's on
the magazine shelf it has a lot of clout with the typical consumer. If
you know a more authoritative source than JD Powers let me know.

 

"Authoritative survey" is an oxymoron.

Surveys merely suggest, some with more statistical
reliability than others.

 

The JDP Initial quality survey is a mixed bag of bullshit data. "Too
much wind noise and the engine blew up" would count as two defects.

 

That's true of most high end vehicle buyers.
Why admit you made a mistake, when you can easily afford the maintenance.

Several years ago Mercedes owners had enough of their problems and many
went public.