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

"Elle" > wrote in message
...
> "C. E. White" > wrote
>> Actually I would say that the Yaris is a perfect example of CR
>> bias. Despite having only one years worth of questionnaire data,
>> they give it a predicted reliability rating of much better than
>> average. How many Yaris owners do you figure responded to the 2007
>> CR survey? In most cases CR would say the model was to new to be
>> rated. But for a Toyota, they assume it is great.....despite recent
>> Camry and Tundra problems.
>
> 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.

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

"C. E. White" > wrote
>"Elle" > wrote
>> "Gordon McGrew" > wrote
>>> CE White wrote
>> For brevity, I snipped Gordon's helpful observations.
>> Look back.
>>>> At least JD Powers gives you a number (number of
>>>> problems reported
>>>>per 100 vehicels)
>>
>> Of course, CR does too, as has been noted.
>
> Please let me know wherer I can find the "numbers."

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.

C. E. White wrote:

> Actually I would say that the Yaris is a perfect example of CR bias.
> Despite having only one years worth of questionnaire data, they give it
> a predicted reliability rating of much better than average. How many
> Yaris owners do you figure responded to the 2007 CR survey? In most
> cases CR would say the model was to new to be rated. But for a Toyota,
> they assume it is great.

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.

Ray O wrote:
> "Roadrunner NG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Don't most people like the car they just bought within 90 days? Weak
>> Statistic. Otherwise, it's kinda like admitting you're stupid.
>
> Good point! When one asks someone how they like their new vehicle, the
> response is usually not "I hate it!"

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.

> Kind of like asking that person what kind of a deal they negotiated on the
> car, people rarely say "I paid too much."
>
> Also kind of like asking that person about their driving skills...
> regardless of their age, experience, gender, race, religion, ethnic
> background, level of education, financial status, or knowledge about the
> workings of an automobile, they all consider themselves above average
> drivers!

"mack" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shep" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Consider most Porsche owners are somewhat fanatical about ownership of
>> these cars and hesitate to complain about mundane issues like the rest of
>> us might.
> I'd guess just the reverse is true. When a car fanatic spends the big
> (ultrabig!) bucks for a Porsche, I'd bet he'd head to the dealership if
> there was a click in the windshield wiper, or a slightly crooked something
> or other that bugged him, whereas joe sixpack would ignore it. I used to
> be the roommate of a Porsche owner, and he wanted perfection at all
> times in any weather and was not about to put up with any imperfections.

Is THAT why you are no longer his roommate?


>
>

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:jID3k.534$ul.138@trndny08...
> Ray O wrote:
>> "Roadrunner NG" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Don't most people like the car they just bought within 90 days? Weak
>>> Statistic. Otherwise, it's kinda like admitting you're stupid.
>>
>> Good point! When one asks someone how they like their new vehicle, the
>> response is usually not "I hate it!"
>
> 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.
>

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

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:27:06 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"larry moe 'n curly" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> "Elle" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>> > The CR survey is as random as Power's ridiculously useless
>>> > survey.
>>>
>>> It is not random at all. They only survey CR readers, and then only
>>> readers
>>> who wish to respond. I've always felt this biases the results of
>>> the CR
>>> survey to match the editorial opinions of the CR staff. In recent
>>> years CR
>>> has done a better job of massaging the results, but I still think
>>> they are
>>> suspect.
>>
>> So why does CR's survey show that the Toyota Yaris, a car they
>> didn't
>> like and don't recommend, has high reliability? Did too many
>> dissident subscribers slip into the survey by accident?
>
>Actually I would say that the Yaris is a perfect example of CR bias.
>Despite having only one years worth of questionnaire data, they give
>it a predicted reliability rating of much better than average. How
>many Yaris owners do you figure responded to the 2007 CR survey? In
>most cases CR would say the model was to new to be rated. But for a
>Toyota, they assume it is great.....despite recent Camry and Tundra
>problems.
> I suppose they may be basing the high rating on the history
>of the Echo, but there was a gap of a year between the last Echo model
>and the first Yaris model, and the Echo had some problem areas (paint,
>brakes) identified for the last year they were sold
>
>It is interesting to read the Consumer Opinions on the CR site for the
>Yaris. People would complaint about the ride, or the driving position,
>or noise, and still give the car 5 stars. The great majority (~38 out
>of 53) gave it 5 stars (and all but a handful of the others gave it
>four stars). It seems that most people that buy these are satisfied
>because the car gets great gas mileage and they are willing to put us
>with a lot of crap to get it. I doubt that many of the respondents to
>the 2007 questionnaire had more than 10k miles on their Yaris. Do you
>think this is sufficient to say anything?

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.

> Given the fact that most of
>the owners who responded with written opinions on the web site seemed
>to mostly care about gas mileage, does it seem reasonable to assume
>that more than a few might gloss over a few minor reliability problems
>because of their smugness at getting good gas mileage?

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.

> Lots of cars
>get really good rating the first year they are surveyed. For instance,
>the 2007 Focus (a recommended car) has really good first year
>reliability rating based on the survey results (as it does for 2006
>and 2005), yet CR did not provide a predicted reliability rating.

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
>said it was "new." However, in the road test they referred to the 2007
>design as a "freshening" and implied the underpinnings were not much
>changed. So why don't they give the Focus a good predicted reliability
>rating?

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.

>Seems to me that they have at least as much basis for giving
>it this rating as for the Yaris. Remember, they claim they base the
>predicted reliability on the latest three model years of a design -
>well unless it is a Toyota, apparently one year is enough for them.

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.

"Sharx35" > wrote in message
news:JZF3k.785$L03.784@edtnps92...
>
> "mack" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Shep" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Consider most Porsche owners are somewhat fanatical about ownership of
>>> these cars and hesitate to complain about mundane issues like the rest
>>> of us might.
>> I'd guess just the reverse is true. When a car fanatic spends the big
>> (ultrabig!) bucks for a Porsche, I'd bet he'd head to the dealership if
>> there was a click in the windshield wiper, or a slightly crooked
>> something or other that bugged him, whereas joe sixpack would ignore it.
>> I used to be the roommate of a Porsche owner, and he wanted perfection
>> at all times in any weather and was not about to put up with any
>> imperfections.
>
> Is THAT why you are no longer his roommate?
>
>
FOAD, jerk.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:32:43 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>"Elle" > wrote in message
...
>> "C. E. White" > wrote
>>> Actually I would say that the Yaris is a perfect example of CR
>>> bias. Despite having only one years worth of questionnaire data,
>>> they give it a predicted reliability rating of much better than
>>> average. How many Yaris owners do you figure responded to the 2007
>>> CR survey? In most cases CR would say the model was to new to be
>>> rated. But for a Toyota, they assume it is great.....despite recent
>>> Camry and Tundra problems.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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.

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.

>Some things are just to bad to cover-up.

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.

> 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?).

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?