Toyota dominates 2006 quality rankings

Had they known, they would have bought Porsche's I suppose.

The latest CR survey collected reports on over 1,000,000 vehicles.
Since only subscribers are surveyed (and not all of them respond), it
is safe to say that there are well over 200,000 subscribers. Where you
got the 63,607 number is anyone's guess.

I think Toyota and Honda buyers are basing their purchase on a solid
history of reliability in their vehicles. There isn't much difference
between the latest model year cars in the CR survey. These cars are
an average of 90 days old at the time of the survey. Even so, 2005
Toyotas and Hondas were significantly better (in a statistical sense)
than Hyundais, Kias, Fords and GMs. For earlier models (i.e. older
cars) the differences are dramatic. I don't think most buyers are
basing their decision on the CR survey. In my experience they are
basing it past experience. Toyota and Honda owners are buying Toyotas
and Hondas while GM and Ford owners are buying, well... Toyotas and
Hondas.

I am not aware that CR sells the raw data to anyone at any price, but
if someone is paying big bucks to find out whether the cooling system
component that fails is the radiator or the water pump, they are
getting screwed because CR doesn't collect that information.

Well that is interesting because CR just finished their first survey
of 2006 cars and hasn't released any results yet. I think you are
mistaken (for the 211th time I believe) and are referring to the JD
Power survey. JD Power is first and foremost a marketing tool.
"Initial quality" means little unless you trade your car every 90
days. Those of us who keep their cars for five, ten or more years
aren't that concerned with the first 90 days. (I haven't owned a car
that new since 1992.)

There is a huge difference in the reliability of different cars as
they age. As of this year, CR data doesn't indicate absolute failure
rates, but looking at last year's survey you can see that seven year
old Accords had an electrical failure rate in the 2 - 5% range while a
Malibu of the same age had a failure rate over 15%. In fact the
failure rate had been over (how much over?) 15% since the car was
three years old. This is a clear indication of multiple and/or un
fixable problems. And that is just one subsystem. These aggravating
and expensive problems can force many people to just give up and buy a
new car which is the most expensive repair of all.

 

Great. Thing is, as you said, its initial problems,. A survay like the
top gear one, is for cars after 2-3 years of ownership. Most will
still be on their first owners, but racking up the miles and services.

New car survays aren't that informative, just tells you how good the
new car is. Doesn't tell you how often things needed repair, how the
dealer was when these repairs took place etc.

THAT is more important, the living with it, than the first few weeks.

 

You are entitled to you own opinion just as were the persons replying to the
survey. We are speaking of the NEW vehicles, available on the market TODAY,
not the vehicles sold ten year ago. Every manufacture is building better
vehicles today than even five years ago. Hyundai would not have bested
Toyota in a survey ten years ago.

You are correct I misspoke, it was not CR but JD Powers survey that was
published in the Tribune newspapers. The number surveyed was listed as
63,607 returns of the 200,000 sent out. I simply pointed to the result
published that listing Hyundai brand vehicles as number two and Toyota brand
vehicles as number four.

As to the validly of the survey it was between all manufactures, on initial
quality, no more no less. Historically however JD Powers long term survey
show basically the same result. The number of defects for all brands fall
into the same one to two percent range. When brand vehicle lines are
compared statistically one has a 98% chance of getting a good one, no mater
whose name is on the grill, and an equal 2% chance of getting one that is
problematic. In any event the 'defects' are not quantified, to get that you
must pay a fee. Surly you do not believe JD Powers does all that surveying
for free?

As to long term reliability, that is a survey for another day. JD Powers
only survey vehicles purchase new over five year, not ten and not used as
does CR. Very few new car buyers keep their vehicles anywhere near ten
years, only around two to three percent do so. Statistically in the US the
average new car buyer replaces their vehicle with another new vehicle in
three to four years with 30K to 45K on the clock. At some point they all
will need repairs

mike hunt



..

I am not aware that CR sells the raw data to anyone at any price, but

 

How could we possibly know how well 2006 vehicles will hold up after
five years. All we can do is assume that they will be the same or
slightly better than the 2001s.

According to Consumer Reports, Hyundai reliability is not up to Toyota
and Honda standards at any age. However, they have improved a lot
over the years.

One thing JDP and CR do agree on; Hyundais overall are now more
reliable than Ford and GM. In fact, in the CR survey Hyundai
reliability is actually closer to Honda and Toyota than it is to GM
and Ford.

CR shows a huge range of problem rates at five years, from 0.2
problems per car for the best Hondas and Toyotas up to 1.4 problems
per car for the worst GMs, VWs, Chryslers and Mercedes. The average
GM vehicle has about 0.9 problems, the average Toyota about 0.3, Honda
0.4 . In other words, expect to have a problem every year with your
Chevy, every third year for your Toyota.

You also must pay a fee to JDP if you want to cite their results in
your ads. That gives them an incentive to make everyone look good
somehow, particularly big companies with lots of advertising dollars.

By contrast, CR will not allow anyone to cite their reports in
advertising. They serve only their readers.

Of course they will. Probably lots of repairs if they are Ford or GM.

The average buyer pays a lot more for cars over his lifetime if he
trades every 4 or 5 years. of course, the depreciation on Fords and
GMs is terrible because no one wants one that is four or five years
old.

 

Tha may be your opinion but one can just as well ask how could we possibly
know how well 2001 vehicles will hold up after five years, when the survey
was completed back then?

Spin it anyway you chouse, the fact remains the Hyundai brand bested the
Toyota brand in the JD Powers survey of 2006 models in initial quality.
That was not the case five years ago and THAT my friend is what the survey
was all about.

 

How can you *know*? You couldn't have *known* that the Earth wouldn't
have been destroyed by a killer meteorite by now. But based on past
histories and trends, it was a good bet back in 2001 that your 2001
Toyota or Honda would be more reliable than a GM or Ford. And
subsequent history has bourn that out. The same is now true of 2006.
Even though there is no CR data on them yet, based on experience with
1998 - 2005 cars, Honda and Toyota are a better bet than GM or Ford.

Well, on that basis I recommend that you go out and buy a Hyundai next
time. My issue is that I don't really trust JDP. I don't trust their
motives and I don't trust their results. They are far more opaque
than CR and the results do seem to bounce around a lot.

In any event I don't put much faith in 90 day reliability statistics
whether they come from JDP or CR. At best it is a measure of random
defects and assembly errors. Those tend to shake out during the
warranty period. Serious design defects and deficiencies tend to
appear later.

 

You can't know either. "Initial quality" has nothing to do with
durability, they're two separate animals. European cars have
traditionally had abysmal "initial quality" but pretty darn good
durability, for example.

nate

(too lazy to fix top posting today)

 

Precisely, one can never know any more than one can rely on the opinions of
others or the past history. On can only rely on what they can discern
TODAY, because the vehicles on which the survey was based are the ONLY
vehicles being sold today, not the same vehicles that were sold years ago..
The fact remains every manufacture is building high quality dependable
vehicles today, the only real difference among them is style and price.

If one could go by past performance they could make a killing in stock
market. Every prospectus admonishes the stock purchaser that past performed
in no indicator of what may or may not happen in the future..

The surveys consistently shown over the past years that statically one has a
far better change of getting one of any manufactures good ones than their
bad ones, no mater whose brand in on the grill, so there is little
difference in what brand you buy. If one simply relied on the opinions of
others, few would have purchased a Hyundai brand vehicles ten years ago. In
2006 however the Hyundai brand of vehicles has bested Toyota brand vehicles
when compared by the same criteria.

The point of my original post on the subject of surveys was that IF one goes
by surveys, than the Hyundai brand were a better choice for those that make
their purchase decisions based on surveys, because Hyundai brand bested
Toyota brand and many believe Toyota makes the better vehicles. Pretty
basic concept.

Seems strange that when ones preferred brand does well in a survey, the
loyalist point to that survey as to why others should buy the brand they
choose to buy. When another brand does better in a survey or in the sales
race than their preferred brand, the surveys and sales figures all of a
sudden become meaningless LOL

mike hunt

 

It has an awful lot to do with build quality.

Take my Jeep Wranglers, for example.

Both of them had problems with water pumps, radiators, rear brake
cylinders, sway bar links, rear gate latches, climate control knobs,
and more, but the aftermarket replacement parts have been of far
higher quality. All of the problems happened early in the ownership
experience, some were actually "fixed" with warranty parts that failed
in exactly the same manner as the original! <G> In the case of the
brake cylinders, my1 '89 and '99 had the same problem!

On the other hand, if Toyota does a drop top FJ, I'm done with
Wranglers! I've had occasional Toyotas with issues, all were solved
by improved OEM replacement parts on the first try. Why? Toyota
changed the part in response to a problem.

 

But we have no data on how the cars of TODAY will hold up in five
years. What basis do you have for believing that the cars of today
will be significantly better than those of five years ago? History is
not an infallible guide, but it is a better guide than your fantasy
that "every manufacture is building high quality dependable vehicles
today," an assertion which you haven't even defined, let alone proven.

For years, JDP Initial Quality Surveys have been show that at least
some GM car brands are as good as Honda and Toyota. But you don't see
that on the CR charts where cars are surveyed every year for eight
years, not just at 90 days and three years.

CR continues to find large reliability differences between
manufacturers and even within car lines. At five years, the worst
Chevy is having seven times as many problems as the best Japanese
cars. Is that what you mean by a high quality, dependable vehicle?

No, it says that it is not a guaranty of future performance.

Car manufacturers' reliability records do change over time. Mercedes
used to make some of the most reliable cars you could buy. Now they
are ranked dead last by CR. It took 20+ years for this transition.
Hyundai used to be at the very bottom. Fifteen years later they made
it to middle of the pack. Are the 2006 Hyundais even better? Very
likely, but it is doubtful they have caught up with Honda and Toyota
yet. And how about Honda and Toyota? Twenty years ago they were at
the at the top of the charts. Today they still are. According to CR,
they make the most reliable 90 day, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 year-old
cars you can buy. Will that still be true five years form now?
Impossible to know for certain but it seems like a good bet.

BTW, Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles used to be reliable cars. Now five
year old Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles are right at the bottom of the
heap. However, I predict that no one will be having any problems with
a 2006 Oldsmobile and you can take that one to the bank.

You are so full of crap mike. Even JDP only reports an average of
problems per car. You don't know if all those problems were spread
evenly or if they all happened to the same poor schmuck.

Like I said before, I don't trust JDP and I don't put much weight
behind 90 day ownership experience. I will believe that Hyundai has
caught up with Toyota when I see it in the CR survey for cars at least
3 years old.

But that is only true IF you go by the JDP Initial Quality Survey. If
you trust CR, and reliability is your first consideration, you would
go with Honda and Toyota. On the other hand, if you want a well
designed, well manufactured, enjoyable and practical car you would buy
a Honda or a Toyota. If you want to impress people and don't care how
much it costs to buy or how often it breaks, buy a Mercedes. If you
want style, will that's a matter of taste but I think the new Lotuses
(Loti?) are the best looking cars since the XKE. Great performance
too. Unfortunately, the reliability is likely to be similar.

If you want the lowest price possible, Hyundai is now an attractive
alternative to Chevy and Ford.

I don't think you will find many people in the Honda or Toyota groups
pointing to the JDP surveys as a source of good information. JDP is
and advertising tool.

 

I think you missed my point.... It was SIMPLY this: Toyotas are
overpriced. Thats it, nothing more Especially the freekin used ones!

 

Actually, I understood that the first time. MY point is that they
probably are NOT overpriced because when compared to most (not all)
other makes, initial quality is better, long-term quality is much
better and resale value is much, much better (what you're
complaining about).

Again, I have never owned a Toyota product. (I own a Honda CRV and
a Acura RL.) However, Toyota quality and reliability makes them
worth more than many other vehicles.

 

On 6/11/2006 12:56 AM Gordon McGrew spake these words of knowledge:

Gordon,

you're arguing with someone of impaired capability on several levels.
He is clearly unable to comprehend what so many have said -- and
further, if you did convince him to actually look at the facts, nothing
will have been gained.

You've been trolled.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

I get your point. If the survey support your brand of choice it is a
reliable survey, if it does not it is unreliable LOL

mike

 

That is the same reason some folks will pay 20% to 30% more to buy them than
their competators vehicles, they think they are that much 'better.'
However obvioulsy more buyers are not willing to pay the premium to drive
them home because they do not believe that. In the real world Americans buy
more of the vehicles sold by GM and Ford.


.. MY point is that they

 

There you go -- top posting again. I know I'm wasting my time, but
please stop.

I don't know where you get the 20%-30% premium for Toyota and Hondas
vehicles, but even if it were true, it may actually be worth it to
get a better vehicle that retains it's resale value much, much better.

As to your second point about people buying more Ford and GM
products... What will you say when very soon (probably this year)
Toyota becomes the most popular vehicle brand (in terms of sales).
This is not only because Toyota will increase it's sales but because
GM and Ford will be decreasing the number of vehicles they make --
simply because they cannot sell all of them without massive
incentives -- that hurt their already bleeding bottom line.

As I said in an earlier message, GM and Ford have been making many
more vehicles than are needed because they need to cover the basic
(and massive) infrastructure costs. I know all of this will be
brushed off by you (you have repeatedly been told all of this and
more by many people), but maybe others will read it and understand
what's really going on. GM is either going to cut production
levels, workforce, union (salary and healthcare) costs,
infrastructure costs and stop offering such massive incentives or
they will continue their very rapid slide into oblivion.
Personally, I think it's too late but I hope I'm wrong. Oh, another
thing they need to do is start making vehicles (other than SUV's and
pickups) that people actually want to buy.

 

Lee
There is nothing wrong with top posting, most of the time I do not want to
page down through a bunch of text that I read before.

I do agree with your opinion concerning the main issue of the discussion
about the quality ratings.

In the OLD DAYS back in the early - mid 1990's bottom posting was considered
the only correct form to use, as we say in NYC dem daz iz long gone

 

You are wasting your time Mike. I as a Toy mech at one point in my life know
their reliability............Not what people think they are. As a matter of
fact, I remember CR at one time put toy corolla as a reliable
vehicle.......yet at the same time tore apart the chevy nova. Same vehicle.
Go figure.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but the very justification you
wrote indicates you're being lazy when you do it and you care less
about making it easy to read for everyone and more about making it
easy for you. BTW, your opinion is not shared by the vast majority
of newsgroup participants.

Why do you believe it changed?