On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.gm,alt. autos.nissan,alt.autos.honda
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com.. .
>
>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>> purposes.)
>
>Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke.
>
>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>
>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>
>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>>
>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>> to poor location)."
>>
>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>> to hand out.
>
>You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you
>referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never
>used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company
>Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the
>text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top
>model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this
>year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were
>the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article.
>Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top
>rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was
>incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles
>than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than
>Ford models than the opposite.


This (112 v 120) is what I hate about the way they present this data.
You look at those numbers and people think WOW, 120 is a LOT more then
112. Or if you look at the bigger list you'll find some models with
101 problems to compare to the one with 120. And the consumer is left
with the impression there is this HUGE difference of 19 points between
these cars and will most likely be thinking "If I by the ACME sedan
I'll have 19 more problems then if I buy the SQUAT Coupe. But what it
really means is that the ONE ACME vehicle he buys will have 1.2
problems to worry about and the SQUAT will have 1.01 problems. What's
that mean in practical terms? It means SQUAT, i.e., nothing. He'll
need to take either car back to the dealer to get the problem fixed.
It maybe, might, possibly mean that over the course of a couple years
the ACME will go back to the shop 2 times and the SQUAT will go back 3
times. Or depending on what breaks and when, they both may only go
back 2 times. So the bottom line for the vast majority of car buyers
is that all these cars are pretty much the same as far as how much
"trouble" they are going to have in terms of these JDPowers figures.
It's only if you compare the cars on the tail end of the distribution,
one with a rating of 73 to one with a rating of 130 that there is
really enough difference in "quality" that it should matter to a
buyer. But CU and the like are taking these trivial differences for
the vast majority of cars and turning the trivial into the difference
between giving one a 2 star rating and the other a 5 star rating.

 

Toyota will be on par with the big 3 in terms of quality if they keep trying
to buid more cars in less time with fewer employees. I drive a Toyota, happy
with it. But will be going back to an accord next car. But, this is a honda
group, so who cares about toyota?
"Huck Flynn" <HF36736@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46689e7c$0$16277$822641b3@news.adtechcomputer s.com...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060601431.html
>
>
>

 

Toyota will be on par with the big 3 in terms of quality if they keep trying
to buid more cars in less time with fewer employees. I drive a Toyota, happy
with it. But will be going back to an accord next car. But, this is a honda
group, so who cares about toyota?
"Huck Flynn" <HF36736@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46689e7c$0$16277$822641b3@news.adtechcomputer s.com...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060601431.html
>
>
>

 

On Jun 7, 8:29 pm, Jim Higgins <gordian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Huck Flynn wrote:
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/06/06/AR200...
>
> The trick for Ford will be maintaining the quality. Can they do it or
> is it a flash in the pan? Quality has been the norm, rather than the
> exception as it has been with the Little Three, for Toyota and Honda.

I have had a Toyota & a Honda and hated them! No room or really good
gas mileage. I own a Ford & a Camero

 

On Jun 7, 8:29 pm, Jim Higgins <gordian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Huck Flynn wrote:
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/06/06/AR200...
>
> The trick for Ford will be maintaining the quality. Can they do it or
> is it a flash in the pan? Quality has been the norm, rather than the
> exception as it has been with the Little Three, for Toyota and Honda.

I have had a Toyota & a Honda and hated them! No room or really good
gas mileage. I own a Ford & a Camero

 

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:59:14 -0400, "80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>I can agree with that, but like Edwin said, for some people, it's all about
>who's name is on the grill. Some see "Toyota Matrix" and 'ohhh and ahh',
>then looking over at the "Pontiac Vibe" and start nagging about what an
>awful car it is.

I agree 100%.

 

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:59:14 -0400, "80 Knight" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>I can agree with that, but like Edwin said, for some people, it's all about
>who's name is on the grill. Some see "Toyota Matrix" and 'ohhh and ahh',
>then looking over at the "Pontiac Vibe" and start nagging about what an
>awful car it is.

I agree 100%.

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:13:36 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> still me wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way
>>>>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one
>>>>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were
>>>>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what
>>>>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably.
>>>>> There certainly is in people's minds.
>>>> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are
>>>> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception.
>>> In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence?
>>
>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>> purposes.)
>>
>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>
>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>
>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>
>That's not inexplicable. It is easy to understand. JDP IQS is a rating
>of the number of problems people found in the first 90 days of
>ownership. I would think that Overall Mechanical qualtiy and design
>quality took into account other things than what people reported in the
>1st 90 days.

Nope. All of these ratings are from the 2007 JDP IQS. Follow the
link and see.

>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>> to poor location)."
>>
>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>> to hand out.
>
>Who are their costumers? The auto industry.

Exactly. The secret of how Ford "beat Toyota" is in the number of top
rated models - Ford had more than Toyota. But the real secret is that
half of the rating has nothing to do with quality as most readers
would define it in this context. It includes styling and other
subjective appraisals and weights them evenly with such questions as,
"Did the transmission fail?"

So why is the headline "Ford has more top models than Toyota" instead
of "Toyota has higher overall quality than Ford?" It comes back to
JDP's business; selling endorsements to advertisers. "Toyota beats
Ford" is like "dog bites man." Toyota isn't going to pay money for a
JDP badge that says what everyone already knows and assumes. Ford, on
the other hand has a major credibility problem at this point and will
gladly pay for an endorsement from an independent, well-known survey
organization.

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:13:36 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:33:25 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> still me wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:18:43 -0700, Kruse <kruse@kansas.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The real irony is that these cars were identical in about every way
>>>>> and even produced in the same factory and they were probably made one
>>>>> car in front of each other. The only difference between the two were
>>>>> the make/model badges on the dash and on the bumper. THAT'S what
>>>>> Iacoca was peeved about, the perception of difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, is there a difference? Probably.
>>>>> There certainly is in people's minds.
>>>> First, JD Powers ia a highly biased source and their survey's are
>>>> rarely (never?) statistically valid. This one is no exception.
>>> In your opinion. Can you back this opinion with evidence?
>>
>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>> purposes.)
>>
>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>
>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>
>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>
>That's not inexplicable. It is easy to understand. JDP IQS is a rating
>of the number of problems people found in the first 90 days of
>ownership. I would think that Overall Mechanical qualtiy and design
>quality took into account other things than what people reported in the
>1st 90 days.

Nope. All of these ratings are from the 2007 JDP IQS. Follow the
link and see.

>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>> to poor location)."
>>
>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>> to hand out.
>
>Who are their costumers? The auto industry.

Exactly. The secret of how Ford "beat Toyota" is in the number of top
rated models - Ford had more than Toyota. But the real secret is that
half of the rating has nothing to do with quality as most readers
would define it in this context. It includes styling and other
subjective appraisals and weights them evenly with such questions as,
"Did the transmission fail?"

So why is the headline "Ford has more top models than Toyota" instead
of "Toyota has higher overall quality than Ford?" It comes back to
JDP's business; selling endorsements to advertisers. "Toyota beats
Ford" is like "dog bites man." Toyota isn't going to pay money for a
JDP badge that says what everyone already knows and assumes. Ford, on
the other hand has a major credibility problem at this point and will
gladly pay for an endorsement from an independent, well-known survey
organization.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
<...>

> So why is the headline "Ford has more top models than Toyota" instead
> of "Toyota has higher overall quality than Ford?" It comes back to
> JDP's business; selling endorsements to advertisers. "Toyota beats
> Ford" is like "dog bites man." Toyota isn't going to pay money for a
> JDP badge that says what everyone already knows and assumes. Ford, on
> the other hand has a major credibility problem at this point and will
> gladly pay for an endorsement from an independent, well-known survey
> organization.

The headlines are written by newspapers, not by JD Powers. The headlines
could have just as easily been "Toyota takes half the truck and SUV
initial quality awards."

Jeff

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
<...>

> So why is the headline "Ford has more top models than Toyota" instead
> of "Toyota has higher overall quality than Ford?" It comes back to
> JDP's business; selling endorsements to advertisers. "Toyota beats
> Ford" is like "dog bites man." Toyota isn't going to pay money for a
> JDP badge that says what everyone already knows and assumes. Ford, on
> the other hand has a major credibility problem at this point and will
> gladly pay for an endorsement from an independent, well-known survey
> organization.

The headlines are written by newspapers, not by JD Powers. The headlines
could have just as easily been "Toyota takes half the truck and SUV
initial quality awards."

Jeff

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com.. .
>
>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>> purposes.)
>
>Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke.

Whereas C. E. White is an authority. Sorry, you have to give evidence
if you want to make this assertion. I have documented why I think JDP
is a joke. Your turn.

>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>
>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>
>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>>
>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>> to poor location)."
>>
>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>> to hand out.
>
>You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you
>referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never
>used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company
>Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the
>text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top
>model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this
>year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were
>the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article.
>Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top
>rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was
>incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles
>than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than
>Ford models than the opposite.

Actually, I was aware of that. The point of my post was really that
the test criteria itself is goofy. Car A and Car B have equal quality
with three problems each: Car A had a transmission failure, a cooling
system failure and one of the doors fell off. Car B has an ugly front
end, an ugly rear end and the doors make a tinny sound when slammed.


>
>I do think it is interesting that you think JD Powers is biased toward Ford
>or GM, when the company has literally preached the Toyota gospel for 10+
>years. Like any survey that depends on the honesty of the participants, the
>JD Power survey can't be 100% accurate.

Where did I say they were biased toward Ford? They are not biased
toward or against any manufacturer. They are biased toward making
money. There are so many different ways to spin and sell the results
that you can show anybody won. You got money? JDP has an award for
you. "Among non-premium brands, Kia posts the largest improvement in
ranking, moving from 24th in 2006 to 12th in 2007 and earning an award
for the Kia Rio/Rio5 for the second year in a row."

From a consumer standpoint, they are not biased. They are irrelevant.

> However, for you to criticize JD
>Power is not fair. When you allude to more objective surveys, I am guessing
>you mean Consumer Reports. The fact that CR doesn't sell advertising doesn't
>necessarily make them objective. They have to sell magazines to stay in
>business.

You are right. JDP serves its customers (manufacturers) and CR serves
its customers (consumers). Note that the CR site doesn't include a
button to get a dealer quote.

>If you start looking through the on-line consumer reviews section
>of their automotive section, you'll quickly notice that Toyota owners write
>5 to 10 times as many reviews as Ford owners. This suggests to me that there
>are 5 to 10 times as many CR subscribers that own Toyotas as own Fords. So
>when CR reviews a car, do you suppose they might think twice before saying
>bad things about a Toyota? If they start trashing Toyotas, don't you think
>there might be a backlash from Toyota owners?

The CR survey reports what owners said broke on their cars. This is a
pretty objective survey and the results are consistent internally and
with external reality. Also, they survey them every year (not just at
90 days and five years)Japanese cars started beating domestics in the
CR reliability survey back in the early 1970s. I guarantee that most
CR readers were not driving Japanese cars at the time.

As for the CR car testing program; even that is kept as objective as
possible. For example, a car would have to look pretty sharp or
pretty weird for them to even comment on it. (Pontiac Aztec achieved
this.) Even then it isn't considered in the ratings. I respect their
professional judgment and experience on subjective matters as displays
and controls, controllability, seat comfort, etc. more than the
opinion of Ford owners evaluating Fords.

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com.. .
>
>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>> purposes.)
>
>Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke.

Whereas C. E. White is an authority. Sorry, you have to give evidence
if you want to make this assertion. I have documented why I think JDP
is a joke. Your turn.

>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>
>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>
>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>>
>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>> to poor location)."
>>
>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>> to hand out.
>
>You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you
>referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never
>used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company
>Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the
>text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top
>model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this
>year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were
>the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article.
>Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top
>rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was
>incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles
>than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than
>Ford models than the opposite.

Actually, I was aware of that. The point of my post was really that
the test criteria itself is goofy. Car A and Car B have equal quality
with three problems each: Car A had a transmission failure, a cooling
system failure and one of the doors fell off. Car B has an ugly front
end, an ugly rear end and the doors make a tinny sound when slammed.


>
>I do think it is interesting that you think JD Powers is biased toward Ford
>or GM, when the company has literally preached the Toyota gospel for 10+
>years. Like any survey that depends on the honesty of the participants, the
>JD Power survey can't be 100% accurate.

Where did I say they were biased toward Ford? They are not biased
toward or against any manufacturer. They are biased toward making
money. There are so many different ways to spin and sell the results
that you can show anybody won. You got money? JDP has an award for
you. "Among non-premium brands, Kia posts the largest improvement in
ranking, moving from 24th in 2006 to 12th in 2007 and earning an award
for the Kia Rio/Rio5 for the second year in a row."

From a consumer standpoint, they are not biased. They are irrelevant.

> However, for you to criticize JD
>Power is not fair. When you allude to more objective surveys, I am guessing
>you mean Consumer Reports. The fact that CR doesn't sell advertising doesn't
>necessarily make them objective. They have to sell magazines to stay in
>business.

You are right. JDP serves its customers (manufacturers) and CR serves
its customers (consumers). Note that the CR site doesn't include a
button to get a dealer quote.

>If you start looking through the on-line consumer reviews section
>of their automotive section, you'll quickly notice that Toyota owners write
>5 to 10 times as many reviews as Ford owners. This suggests to me that there
>are 5 to 10 times as many CR subscribers that own Toyotas as own Fords. So
>when CR reviews a car, do you suppose they might think twice before saying
>bad things about a Toyota? If they start trashing Toyotas, don't you think
>there might be a backlash from Toyota owners?

The CR survey reports what owners said broke on their cars. This is a
pretty objective survey and the results are consistent internally and
with external reality. Also, they survey them every year (not just at
90 days and five years)Japanese cars started beating domestics in the
CR reliability survey back in the early 1970s. I guarantee that most
CR readers were not driving Japanese cars at the time.

As for the CR car testing program; even that is kept as objective as
possible. For example, a car would have to look pretty sharp or
pretty weird for them to even comment on it. (Pontiac Aztec achieved
this.) Even then it isn't considered in the ratings. I respect their
professional judgment and experience on subjective matters as displays
and controls, controllability, seat comfort, etc. more than the
opinion of Ford owners evaluating Fords.

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:52:07 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.gm,alt .autos.nissan,alt.autos.honda
>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>>> purposes.)
>>
>>Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke.
>>
>>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>>
>>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>>
>>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>>>
>>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>>> to poor location)."
>>>
>>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>>> to hand out.
>>
>>You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you
>>referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never
>>used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company
>>Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the
>>text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top
>>model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this
>>year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were
>>the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article.
>>Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top
>>rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was
>>incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles
>>than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than
>>Ford models than the opposite.
>
>
>This (112 v 120) is what I hate about the way they present this data.
>You look at those numbers and people think WOW, 120 is a LOT more then
>112. Or if you look at the bigger list you'll find some models with
>101 problems to compare to the one with 120. And the consumer is left
>with the impression there is this HUGE difference of 19 points between
>these cars and will most likely be thinking "If I by the ACME sedan
>I'll have 19 more problems then if I buy the SQUAT Coupe. But what it
>really means is that the ONE ACME vehicle he buys will have 1.2
>problems to worry about and the SQUAT will have 1.01 problems. What's
>that mean in practical terms? It means SQUAT, i.e., nothing. He'll
>need to take either car back to the dealer to get the problem fixed.
>It maybe, might, possibly mean that over the course of a couple years
>the ACME will go back to the shop 2 times and the SQUAT will go back 3
>times. Or depending on what breaks and when, they both may only go
>back 2 times. So the bottom line for the vast majority of car buyers
>is that all these cars are pretty much the same as far as how much
>"trouble" they are going to have in terms of these JDPowers figures.
>It's only if you compare the cars on the tail end of the distribution,
>one with a rating of 73 to one with a rating of 130 that there is
>really enough difference in "quality" that it should matter to a
>buyer. But CU and the like are taking these trivial differences for
>the vast majority of cars and turning the trivial into the difference
>between giving one a 2 star rating and the other a 5 star rating.

CU (CR) does not use these results for anything. They do their own
surveys which find that some cars are much more reliable than other
over the course of 5+ years. The differences are not trivial.

JDP is a joke.

 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:52:07 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:39:59 GMT, "C. E. White"
><cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.toyota,alt.autos.gm,alt .autos.nissan,alt.autos.honda
>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:dqhj631ooa0l2gt361evccu906sd6brmu6@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>> IMO, it isn't that JPD IQS isn't statistically valid - I assume it is,
>>> but I don't know. The problem is that it is a joke. It is deceptive
>>> and misleading and the results don't seem to agree with more objective
>>> sources (i.e. ones who don't sell their results for commercial
>>> purposes.)
>>
>>Who would that be? If you mean Consumer Reports, well that is the joke.
>>
>>> Just for fun, look at the JDP 2007 IQS site:
>>>
>>> http://www.jdpower.com/autos/quality-ratings/
>>>
>>> Inexplicably, Toyota is rated *higher* in Overall Quality. Contrary
>>> to the subject line, Toyota beat Ford in Overall Quality, in Overall
>>> Mechanical Quality and tied in Overall Design Quality.
>>>
>>> Note that there are six individual ratings areas, 3 mechanical and 3
>>> design. Toyota outscored Ford in two of three mechanical quality
>>> areas and tied in the third. Toyota and Ford each won one of the
>>> design areas and one was tied. What was the only area where Ford beat
>>> Toyota? Features & Accessories Quality - Design. What is that, you
>>> ask? According to JDP, "this score is based on problems with the
>>> seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and
>>> sunroof." Sounds like a genuine measure of mechanical problems until
>>> you read the general description of what they mean by a design
>>> problem: "this score is based on problems where controls or features
>>> may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e.,
>>> overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due
>>> to poor location)."
>>>
>>> So, a car which has no mechanical defects at all could get beaten by a
>>> less reliable car if the reliable car has a confusing stereo, an ugly
>>> tail and the doors don't make a pleasing sound when slammed. That is
>>> the problem with the JDP IQS. Of course, if its real purpose is to
>>> sell advertising, their system gives them the maximum number of awards
>>> to hand out.
>>
>>You are confusing two different facets of the JD Power results. The page you
>>referenced was overall for all Ford/Toyota Models. The press release never
>>used the words "Ford beats Toyota." What it said was "Ford Motor Company
>>Captures Most Awards in 2007 Initial Quality Study" and if you read the
>>text, they further qualify it by saying "Ford Motor Company garners five top
>>model segment awards-more than any other automobile corporation this
>>year..." The Ford beat Toyota headlines were not JD Power words, they were
>>the words of the newspaper editors trying to attract people to the article.
>>Although it is factually correct in a very limited way (Ford had more top
>>rated models than Toyota in the 2007 Initial Quality study), it was
>>incorrect in the larger context. Toyota had fewer problems per 100 vehicles
>>than Ford (112 vs. 120) and I suspect more Toyota models rated higher than
>>Ford models than the opposite.
>
>
>This (112 v 120) is what I hate about the way they present this data.
>You look at those numbers and people think WOW, 120 is a LOT more then
>112. Or if you look at the bigger list you'll find some models with
>101 problems to compare to the one with 120. And the consumer is left
>with the impression there is this HUGE difference of 19 points between
>these cars and will most likely be thinking "If I by the ACME sedan
>I'll have 19 more problems then if I buy the SQUAT Coupe. But what it
>really means is that the ONE ACME vehicle he buys will have 1.2
>problems to worry about and the SQUAT will have 1.01 problems. What's
>that mean in practical terms? It means SQUAT, i.e., nothing. He'll
>need to take either car back to the dealer to get the problem fixed.
>It maybe, might, possibly mean that over the course of a couple years
>the ACME will go back to the shop 2 times and the SQUAT will go back 3
>times. Or depending on what breaks and when, they both may only go
>back 2 times. So the bottom line for the vast majority of car buyers
>is that all these cars are pretty much the same as far as how much
>"trouble" they are going to have in terms of these JDPowers figures.
>It's only if you compare the cars on the tail end of the distribution,
>one with a rating of 73 to one with a rating of 130 that there is
>really enough difference in "quality" that it should matter to a
>buyer. But CU and the like are taking these trivial differences for
>the vast majority of cars and turning the trivial into the difference
>between giving one a 2 star rating and the other a 5 star rating.

CU (CR) does not use these results for anything. They do their own
surveys which find that some cars are much more reliable than other
over the course of 5+ years. The differences are not trivial.

JDP is a joke.