Sportstick

The JD Power VDS (Vehicle Dependability Study) measures issues reported by owners after three years. The good news in the 2010 results reported in this article from Automotive News is that Mercedes moved up 10 spots among brands. Sorry if any of you also have a Land Rover! Any thoughts what happened with 2007 Audis to cause their drop? (Sorry the article formatting, including the data table, did not hold, but its all there)

Porsche edges out Lincoln for vehicle dependability title

Jesse Snyder
Automotive News -- March 18, 2010 - 7:00 am ET

Print Email Reprints
Add a comment
Recommend




>> Send us a Letter to the Editor
Related Downloads NAMEPLATE RANKING: Problems per 100 vehicles
CAR SEGMENTS: Top three models per segment
TRUCK / MULTI-ACTIVITY VEHICLE SEGMENTS: Top three models per segment

Recent stories on this subject

• Porsche edges out Lincoln for vehicle dependability title

Follow Automotive News

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• RSS Feed

Porsche sits atop the annual U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study rankings released by J.D. Power and Associates today.

The German sports car maker rose from 11th place to top 2009 co-winners Buick and Jaguar and lead the annual study of 3-year-old vehicles. Lexus, which ended its 14-year reign last year, fell to third, in a tie with Buick behind Lincoln.

"It's not ‘What happened to Lexus?' … the entire industry has gotten very competitive,” said David Sargent, vice president of global research for J.D. Power and the chief author of the study. “No one brand stands out like it used to.”

While vehicles in general keep getting more dependable each year, some U.S. and South Korean automakers don't get the public respect they deserve, Sargent added. Most of the 36 brands surveyed scored fewer problems than they did in last year's study, repeating a long-term pattern. The brands with the biggest perception gaps, according to Sargent: Cadillac, Ford, Hyundai, Lincoln and Mercury.

Manufacturing more dependable vehicles can be easier and faster than convincing skeptical consumers of any improvement.

“It's not an overnight process,” Sargent said. “They just have to keep designing and building quality vehicles and communicate with customers. They're in the process of doing that, but it takes time.”

Each of Ford Motor Co.'s U.S. brands -- Ford, Mercury and Lincoln -- finished in the top 10 this year, while Hyundai was No. 11 and Cadillac No. 12.

Fourteen brands finished above the industry average score of 155 problems, which improved from last year's average of 167.

The study measures problems experienced by original owners of 3-year-old (2007 model year) vehicles, covering 198 different problem symptoms. The score reflects the number of problems reported per 100 vehicles. The lower the score, the better the apparent vehicle dependability.

All but seven brands scored below 200, meaning less than two reported problems per vehicle over the three years.

In addition to Porsche's rise, notable gains included No. 2 Lincoln, which finished eighth last year, and No. 9 Mercedes-Benz, which climbed 10 spots.

The biggest surprise was Jaguar falling from last year's first-place tie to No. 23 this year. Jaguar's score may have been affected by the introduction of a new model, Sargent said.

Jaguars from the 2007 model year were built by Ford Motor Co., as were Land Rovers. The brands are now owned by India's Tata Motors.

Germany's Audi also plummeted, slipping to No. 26 from No.12 a year earlier.

The same three brands finished at the bottom both years, although in a different order. This year, the lowest score was Land Rover's 255, below Suzuki's 253 and Volkswagen's 225.
2010 Vehicle Dependability StudyJ.D. Power and Associates' annual study measures problems experienced by original owners of three-year-old (2007 model year) vehicles. Overall dependability is determined by the level of problems experienced per 100 vehicles. A lower score means better quality.Porsche110Lincoln114Buick115Lexus115Mercury121Toyota128Honda132Ford141Mercedes-Benz142Acura143Hyundai148Cadillac150Infiniti150Subaru155Industry Average155SAAB158Saturn164BMW165GMC165Chrysler166Kia167Volvo167HUMMER169Jaguar175Chevrolet176Nissan180Audi182Dodge190Pontiac192Mazda195Scion201Mitsubishi202MINI203Jeep222Volkswagen225Suzuki253Land Rover255

C300Sport

Thanks for the info...I will be sure to pass it along to my 335i driving friend...he may outrun me but I can pass him when he is broken down on the side...lol...I think I already told him that when he had to have some work done on his intake due to turbo problems...

tiag335i

This shows why the JD Powers 'survey' is so utterly worthless. What exactly did Porsche do in the span of one model year to increase reliability in such a dramatic fashion? Not a damn thing, I'm willing to bet. And does anyone really believe that Lincoln and Buick make some of the most reliable cars out there? Why would Lincoln be significantly more reliable than Ford when most Lincoln models are simply re-badged, fully loaded versions of their Ford counterparts?

JD Powers is a joke.

Sportstick

Not true. This data is a statistically representative sample of the owners of each nameplate. If you don't like the outcome ( I see you have a BMW, perhaps some response bias here?), your issue is with the owners, not with J.D. Power's accurate reporting of how the respondents completed the survey. These data are not from mechanics assessing products; they report how the owners responded. Of course, there is an issue with varying demographics of each owner body (Buick owners may pick up on different concerns that BMW owners), but the responses reflect their experience. If you don't want to believe large sample data from owners, I suppose you have that privilege.

I also suspect you do not have the file of CNs (Change Notices, in the auto industry parlance) reflecting each minute change Porsche may have made for 2007MY in response to earlier quality issues, nor do you have the model mix of North American sales, which impacts the overall brand score. Your point about Lincoln is equally fallacious. Some Lincolns share platforms with Fords, but not all Fords are also produced as Lincolns. For example, if Focus had a quality spill, Lincoln would not be impacted. And, platform sharing does not make for the same customer experience for unique sheetmetal or interior component assembly, differing suspension calibrations, nor unique feature operation. So, the relative credibilities of JDP's data and your complaint do not support you.

My credentials include having managed a Market Research organization, including when J.D. Power was reporting negative results for my employer. To paraphrase Senator Moynihan, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

tiag335i

Just because I own a BMW doesn't mean I have a "response bias"

I never said that JD Powers inaccurately reported the respondents' submissions. My point is that their methodology is crap, which makes the survey largely useless as a consumer guide.

And that's exactly why JD Power's methodology is crap. What's considered a problem by one person is not a problem to another. If you read BWM forums, for example, you'll see a lot of people complaining about the harsh ride of runflat tires. If enough people report this a problem to JD Powers, that factor alone could explain why BMW is 'less reliable' than, say, a Buick (which still comes with standard tires).

Okay, Mr. Expert. Since you obviously have these CNs, perhaps you could post some of the changes made for MY2007. I'd have no problem being proven wrong if there were, in fact, significant changes between MY2006 and MY2007. However, I highly doubt there were any. Also, perhaps you could enlighten as to which models were introduced or discontinued by Porsche in 2007, since I am not aware of any.

Not saying the results would be identical, but it doesn't make sense that there is such a big difference between Lincoln and Ford. If anything, Lincoln is likely to be less reliable since the rule of thumb is that luxury vehicles are typically less reliable simply because they have more electrical gadgets. My personal theory is that Lincoln ranks higher than Ford because the average Lincoln owner is 80 years old and is simply not capable of hearing many of the squeaks/mechanical noises that a younger Ford owner would likely report as problems (I suspect this is also the reason why Lexus ranks higher than Toyota).

Don't confuse statistics with facts.

C300Sport

Tiag335i,
Your emotional response seems to confirm Sportstick's suspicion that you do indeed have a bias.
Could you please explain the flaw in the methodology as I just don't see any merit in your posted explanation.
All automakers strive to improve quality by improving design, material quality, factory equipment, build methods, etc. The more changes implemented, the more they are likely to improve quality be it mid year, mid product cycle or with a new product.
Lincoln is likely to simply be spending a little more on the materials and equipment going into their cars vs. Ford. That may make all the difference.

Sportstick

I've explained it once, and your replies are interesting, but actually simply a collection of conjecture, personal theory, and lack of awareness of the actual methodology (e.g. design versus reliability measurement). Spend a few years learning research and let's talk then.

Carry on!

tiag335i

Do you understand the difference between subjective indicators (owner opinions of what constitutes a 'problem') and objective indicators (actual repair records)? Do you also understand that JD Powers relies on the former rather than the latter? If the answer to both questions is yes, you should be able to comprehend my post above.

And then, of course, there is the fact that JD Powers does not take into account the severity of the problems. If car A needs a new transmission while Car B suffers a blown speaker and a rattling door panel, car A is more reliable according to JD Powers.

tiag335i

The same can be said about your post. You explained nothing. All you did was provide your personal views and an unsubstantiated claim that you managed a 'Market Research organization' and is therefore a stats whiz who's opinion shall not be challenged.

Spend a few years learning how to make a valid argument and let's talk then. Carry on.

C300Sport

Even the True Delta guys depend on the owners to help collect repair data. It is my understanding that JD Power collects a great deal of data regarding type and severity of problems but I have not seen a detailed report from them in a long time.
One could argue that the reason Buick/Lincoln did so well is that the average driver can't quite hear or see the problems the car is having...of course that would not quite be politically correct...

Sportstick

Not at all...I enjoy credible challenges based on good information and understanding. My staff enjoyed bringing them in the door. Your style of argumentation is exceedingly emotional.

You seem to struggle with and/or reject attempting to fit large sample quantified subjective data into your personal framework of objectivity. The world isn't necessarily as you see it, and the frustration with this reality shows in some of your responses. For example, even in your idealized world where RO (Repair Orders) are measured to determine the outcome, there is significant subjectivity in the decision of the original owner to bring in the vehicle, the assessment of the service advisor in taking the repair or dismissing it as "normal", etc. None of this is objective, so the most rational basis is the owner perception, as that defines their personal experience. How many times do they experience a problem? It is not an economic study of cost of ownership. To the degree that prospective owners are considering certain nameplates, they likely have a psychographic similarity with prior owners, so the earlier experiences among brands they would consider is highly relevant. It may not be for non-considerers of those brands, such as yourself, perhaps.

If you have a substantive response, let's hear it. If you are just doing mockery tonight, well, enjoy the evening!

tiag335i

I guess you didn't read my (long) post above in its entirety, but that's exactly what I said! lol. I think there is definitely something to the theory that the average age of Buick/Lincoln/Lexus (I'm tempted to add another brand here but I won't ) drivers has something to do with their ability to perceive defects.

Sportstick

We've all acknowledged that issue, (Post #4, first para, second to last sentence), but its not a basis for undermining the study!

The population of considerers is generally similar to the population of owners. Therefore, the owner experience for a given brand is a good predictor that prospective owners may have a similar experience. In general, Lexus shoppers don't look at the results, see (making this up as an example) Kia is a step above Lexus, and use the data to move to Kia. They compare Lexus to other brands they are already cross shopping, which mimics consideration behavior of the overall population!

tiag335i

Did your staff also 'enjoy' your self-aggrandizement and your patronizing attitude? Just curious.

By the way, your idiotic assumption that I did not study stats is flat out wrong. FYI, just because one feels no need to flaunt his credentials in front of a bunch of anonymous posters on an online message board doesn't mean that he has no credentials. But that's not something they teach you in school...things like that, you have to figure out on your own.

As for your claim that "the most rational basis is the owner perception, as that defines their personal experience", you are entitled to your opinion of course, but it's a laughable statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be a stats expert. While it's true that it's usually impossible to collect entirely objective data, personal perception is the least objective (and therefore least reliable) indicator of them all. The reason why JD Powers relies on owner reports is really quite simple. A) it's easiest and cheapest way of collecting data and B) car makers would not provide it with internal records on the actual number of repairs per vehicle.

Anyway, feel free to have the last word. I'm done arguing with you.

Sportstick

It seems they did. I still hear from them long after moving on. Never said nor implied you did not study statistics, nor that I was a stats expert. I actually would hire stats experts when needed. But, adding Neuro and Physio Psych will show how widespread subjectivity is in a world where you search for objectivity. As for your point B), warranty data has huge limitations, rendering it a less reliable source of comparative experience across brands.

Sorry you still resort to mockery for argumentation; it undermines your points; otherwise, you write well and seem quite intelligent.

mac911

The shockingly bad number on that graph to me was VW.

C300Kid

Agreed...surprising.

C300Sport

I was actually attempting to agree with you that some differences in driver demographics between brands could possibly skew data....not really likely though. Guess that was another emotional response.....
It is quite amazing how poorly VW performed...wonder how Audi did so much better??

Sportstick

VW did indeed have quality issues as reflected in other data sources for that time period. This was before Wolfgang Bernhard from Daimler came on board and influenced the more recent improved products. (He's back at the Mercedes Benz division of Daimler again). But the difference between Audi and VW is 40 problems per 100 cars, or less than one problem per vehicle. So while this is not a good place to be for either of those brands, the difference between them is under one extra visit to the service department for any given vehicle over three years.

BenTrovato

This is true... if anyone here has worked/owned for a stat research company, the stats are collected for a particular end result. Many people think they collect stats, analyze data, come up with results.

The correct order is 1. Establish statistical end goal, 2. Collect data, 3. Publish results that only prove your statistical end goal. This is how they conclude for example, that drinking 6 cups of coffee lowers your chances of getting Alzheimer's disease. They may decline to produce that 5 cups and 1 avocado increases your chances 10 fold because that was not the end goal.

There's nothing wrong with believing JD Powers stats, but do so knowing they are not the truth. Yes there may be some truth, but not all. I find it odd that anyone would be standing up for JD Powers so firmly, they're just another big company with a bottom line to meet just like anyone else. If ethics entered the north american business market in the past 50 years, I guess I missed that boat!

Why are we arguing about this? lol

C300Sport

The simple fact of the matter is that JD Power reports the number of problems per car...that is the end goal you speak of. It is not that I am defending JD Power, just stating that the data is not rubbish as some would have us believe.

As far as your ethics comment, you are quite ignorant! I have operated my businesses with a high moral and ethical standard as have the vast majority of my competitors and partnered companies. Do not make ignorant statements about your neighbors to the south as our companies tend to be run quite similar as the Canadians.

Sportstick

Why so cynical? I have worked with a multitude of professional researchers, and we always let the data lead to our conclusions, not the other way around. When making hundred-million or billion dollar decisions in the auto industry, it would be too risky and self-defeating do to otherwise. I am aware of some famous "turkeys" where data has been ignored, however.

But, the ranking data from JD Power does not even reach a conclusion; it simply reports respondents responses. What in that process is not "truth" to you? JDP's reasonable "end goal" is to maintain a successful market research firm; they have no agenda for any given brand or manufacturer. The study does not purport to assess costs of ownership; it is measuring customer-identified problems, and that it does quite well. If you have a specific issue with their methodology, get a hold of the questionnaire and the screener and identify the exact problem, please. I've seen their process, and my prior team and I found no such issues.

BTW, I don't take this as "arguing" in the usual sense. We have apparently bright people who, for different subjective reasons, have their own widely different responses to a common stimulus. The interesting part is, "why"? Isn't this forum for letting different points of view come together or bounce off each other? (although we certainly see that some handle differences better than others!)

BenTrovato

Ignorance is bliss! lol I don't know where your comments come from, I think you made my location mean something about Americans, but that's your problem not mine :p I don't view the world as Canadian vs American and so on, I deal with people and that's it, but thank you for sharing your limited viewpoint.

Back on topic:

Here, Porsche and Lincoln lead dependability study:
http://www.thetorquereport.com/2010/...ead_in_20.html

Read the fine print: Rankings are based on numerical scores and not necessarily on statistical significance.

If you've ever been involved at the highest level of a stats company, this is the end goal, to find numerical values that can be used to show a certain result. The studies are never based statistical significance. This is how they operate (and they tell you in plain sight).

It has nothing to do with Canada/US or anywhere in the world. ALL I am saying... I repeat, ALL I am saying is that this is how stat companies operate (again, they tell you in plain sight) - they use numerical data to prove an end goal. That's all I am saying!! If you disagree with me, and JD Power, and every stat company in the world.. then good luck to you. Does that make sense, or are you still taking my comments personally?

Sportstick

If you are correct about companies with whom you have dealt, it would be good to know who they are. However, your comments clearly do not apply widely. Professional researchers understand that "no significant differences" constitute an important finding as much as finding significance. If you wish a career in research, let me know and I can introduce you to credible, high-integrity professionals.

All that footnote means, if the quote is accurate...I couldn't find it...is that two brands, perhaps one point apart, may in fact have the same result. This is sample data and without knowing what is the standard error, that note would only advise that this is ranked data and some differences may not be significant. This is similar to what you hear in public polls where results within, for example, =/- 3% are not significantly different. This is not an issue.

C300Sport

What I find comical is your belief that there is some ulterior motive to the numbers and then blames that on the lack of ethics. You still have yet to identify what this "end goal" is other than the stated goal of tracking the rate of repairs. I disagreed with you, not JD Power or the other statistical companies.
I am quite sure I do not have a limited view point but was simply stating that there are a lot of business in North America that operate in an ethical manner.
Anyhow, I have gotten way off topic on this thread so I am out...