2003 JD Powers Rating
- Thread starter Thai
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Thai
Elite Member
Repairs, Glitches Taint European Cars
Posted 7/10/03
By Ed Garsten
Detroit News
DETROIT — Insufficient air conditioning, too many trips to the repair shop and pesky electrical glitches continue to taint the long-term quality of some popular European automotive brands.
Toyota’s luxury marque, Lexus, was the top rated nameplate for the ninth straight year in the 2003 J.D. Power and Associates’ long-term quality survey.
The complaints — disclosed in a new survey of U.S. buyers about long-term vehicle dependability — underscore the problems still plaguing some of Europe’s most esteemed and expansion-minded automotive brands, including Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover, Volkswagen, Audi and Volvo.
European automakers can no longer look down at American car companies when it comes to durability, although Japanese manufacturers continue to lead the way, according to the study released Tuesday.
Examining problems reported by original owners of 2000 model year vehicles, the 2003 J.D. Power and Associates long-term quality survey found cars and trucks built by domestic automakers had 0.49 fewer problems per vehicle than those produced by Europeans.
“While longer term quality has been a focus for Europeans for a long time, domestic manufacturers are now making long-term quality a major focus,” said Joe Ivers, executive director of quality and customer satisfaction at J.D. Power.
Among European brands in the survey of 55,000 owners, Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi and Mercedes-Benz — which enjoy strong reputations as quality leaders — fell far short of the industry average, the study said.
In some cases, Ivers said, it’s merely a case of quality not matching a brand’s cachet.
“Customers find they have to replace components at an unusual pace and that takes them beyond the threshold of pain,” he said.
The most frequently reported problems across all models and brands were excessive brake wear, wind noise, shocks and struts, fluid leaks and cracked or peeling paint.
But owners of some European vehicles also reported dissatisfaction with air-conditioning systems that simply don’t keep the vehicle cool enough.
“The units are built for the German market where there is not as much variation in climate,” said Ivers. “In Germany, they don’t have to worry about baking in the Arizona sun.”
For Mercedes-Benz, which was the most reliable brand based on the first study of long-term durability released in 1990, it’s been a painful fall from the top.
“We are disappointed with the drop in our ranking but based on a preliminary assessment, the problems are related to characteristics of high performance vehicles and other problems have been resolved,” said Mercedes spokeswoman Donna Boland.
She pointed out the No. 1 problem reported among Mercedes owners was excessive brake dust, common in high performance vehicles. And a problem with the operation of a side window in the Mercedes E-class and M-class was fixed in the 2002 model year.
Leading the way among U.S. automakers’ in overtaking the Europeans was General Motors with 2.64 problems reported per model, GM was the highest rated domestic automaker and sixth overall.
“This is further evidence that our quality initiatives are paying off,” said GM spokesman Pat Morrissey.
Ford placed eighth, falling just below the industry average — 2.73 problems per model — with 2.87 problems per 2000 car or truck.
Daimler Chrysler, which includes the Mercedes-Benz brand, was further back in the pack with 3.11 problems per model.
The Mercedes brand was even topped by its more modest corporate cousin, Chrysler, although Ivers cautioned that doesn’t necessarily mean Chrysler vehicles in general hold up better than Mercedes products.
Mercedes, Ivers said, was hurt by problems with its M-Class sport utility vehicle, and Chrysler must still improve the quality of the transmissions on its Town and Country minivans.
“Their transmissions must be replaced at a higher rate of about 5 or 6 percent, which is about 8 times as often as a Mercury Villager,” said Ivers.
German automaker Porsche was the highest rated manufacturer overall with 1.93 problems per model, but Toyota Motor Corp. was tops among automakers with multiple brands, with 1.96 problems per model, followed by Honda, Nissan and BMW AG.
Korean automaker Kia placed last with 5.09 problems per model.
Toyota’s luxury marque, Lexus, was the top rated nameplate for the ninth straight year with 1.63 problems per vehicle.
“Quality is not just a goal, it’s our culture,” said Mark Templin, Lexus’ vice president in charge of service, parts, customer satisfaction and training.
In January, Toyota permanently transferred 35 engineers from the automaker’s headquarters in Japan to California to help detect problems early in the vehicle development process, said Robert Waltz, Toyota vice president, director of operations customer services group.
GM’s Buick, Cadillac, Saab, GMC, Chevrolet, and Saturn brands all performed better than the industry average, as did Ford’s Lincoln, Mercury and Jaguar brands.
Burned by its past reputation for spotty quality, GM launched an advertising campaign last month titled “The Road to Redemption” touting its products’ improved quality and styling.
Backing that claim are strong showings in the J.D. Power initial quality study released in May, which measures quality after 90 days of ownership and in the Harbour Report, which looks at factory labor productivity.
While GM was the highest rated domestic automaker in the vehicle dependability study, Ivers says it’s too soon to say the automaker has necessarily reached the end of the road to redemption.
“They’re not Toyota yet,” said Ivers. “They’ve got a long way to go but the evidence lends credibility that they’re moving in the right direction.”
Several automakers are placing big bets on the durability of their cars and trucks by offering long-term warranties that cover powertrains, and in some cases, the entire vehicle. It’s a gamble that could cost the automakers millions of dollars in warranty-covered repair costs if their vehicles don’t hold up.
“There will be a moment of truth in the future as to who can actually stand by their warranties,” said Ivers.
Chrysler spokesman Sam Locricchio says the automaker’s quality improvements have resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction in warranty costs since 1998.
The company expects to see the full effects of its quality initiatives by 2006, he said.
Consumers closely watch long-term durability ratings. J.D. Power found that 52 percent of new car buyers say long-term durability is among their most important considerations in choosing a new vehicle.
Posted 7/10/03
By Ed Garsten
Detroit News
DETROIT — Insufficient air conditioning, too many trips to the repair shop and pesky electrical glitches continue to taint the long-term quality of some popular European automotive brands.
Toyota’s luxury marque, Lexus, was the top rated nameplate for the ninth straight year in the 2003 J.D. Power and Associates’ long-term quality survey.
The complaints — disclosed in a new survey of U.S. buyers about long-term vehicle dependability — underscore the problems still plaguing some of Europe’s most esteemed and expansion-minded automotive brands, including Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover, Volkswagen, Audi and Volvo.
European automakers can no longer look down at American car companies when it comes to durability, although Japanese manufacturers continue to lead the way, according to the study released Tuesday.
Examining problems reported by original owners of 2000 model year vehicles, the 2003 J.D. Power and Associates long-term quality survey found cars and trucks built by domestic automakers had 0.49 fewer problems per vehicle than those produced by Europeans.
“While longer term quality has been a focus for Europeans for a long time, domestic manufacturers are now making long-term quality a major focus,” said Joe Ivers, executive director of quality and customer satisfaction at J.D. Power.
Among European brands in the survey of 55,000 owners, Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi and Mercedes-Benz — which enjoy strong reputations as quality leaders — fell far short of the industry average, the study said.
In some cases, Ivers said, it’s merely a case of quality not matching a brand’s cachet.
“Customers find they have to replace components at an unusual pace and that takes them beyond the threshold of pain,” he said.
The most frequently reported problems across all models and brands were excessive brake wear, wind noise, shocks and struts, fluid leaks and cracked or peeling paint.
But owners of some European vehicles also reported dissatisfaction with air-conditioning systems that simply don’t keep the vehicle cool enough.
“The units are built for the German market where there is not as much variation in climate,” said Ivers. “In Germany, they don’t have to worry about baking in the Arizona sun.”
For Mercedes-Benz, which was the most reliable brand based on the first study of long-term durability released in 1990, it’s been a painful fall from the top.
“We are disappointed with the drop in our ranking but based on a preliminary assessment, the problems are related to characteristics of high performance vehicles and other problems have been resolved,” said Mercedes spokeswoman Donna Boland.
She pointed out the No. 1 problem reported among Mercedes owners was excessive brake dust, common in high performance vehicles. And a problem with the operation of a side window in the Mercedes E-class and M-class was fixed in the 2002 model year.
Leading the way among U.S. automakers’ in overtaking the Europeans was General Motors with 2.64 problems reported per model, GM was the highest rated domestic automaker and sixth overall.
“This is further evidence that our quality initiatives are paying off,” said GM spokesman Pat Morrissey.
Ford placed eighth, falling just below the industry average — 2.73 problems per model — with 2.87 problems per 2000 car or truck.
Daimler Chrysler, which includes the Mercedes-Benz brand, was further back in the pack with 3.11 problems per model.
The Mercedes brand was even topped by its more modest corporate cousin, Chrysler, although Ivers cautioned that doesn’t necessarily mean Chrysler vehicles in general hold up better than Mercedes products.
Mercedes, Ivers said, was hurt by problems with its M-Class sport utility vehicle, and Chrysler must still improve the quality of the transmissions on its Town and Country minivans.
“Their transmissions must be replaced at a higher rate of about 5 or 6 percent, which is about 8 times as often as a Mercury Villager,” said Ivers.
German automaker Porsche was the highest rated manufacturer overall with 1.93 problems per model, but Toyota Motor Corp. was tops among automakers with multiple brands, with 1.96 problems per model, followed by Honda, Nissan and BMW AG.
Korean automaker Kia placed last with 5.09 problems per model.
Toyota’s luxury marque, Lexus, was the top rated nameplate for the ninth straight year with 1.63 problems per vehicle.
“Quality is not just a goal, it’s our culture,” said Mark Templin, Lexus’ vice president in charge of service, parts, customer satisfaction and training.
In January, Toyota permanently transferred 35 engineers from the automaker’s headquarters in Japan to California to help detect problems early in the vehicle development process, said Robert Waltz, Toyota vice president, director of operations customer services group.
GM’s Buick, Cadillac, Saab, GMC, Chevrolet, and Saturn brands all performed better than the industry average, as did Ford’s Lincoln, Mercury and Jaguar brands.
Burned by its past reputation for spotty quality, GM launched an advertising campaign last month titled “The Road to Redemption” touting its products’ improved quality and styling.
Backing that claim are strong showings in the J.D. Power initial quality study released in May, which measures quality after 90 days of ownership and in the Harbour Report, which looks at factory labor productivity.
While GM was the highest rated domestic automaker in the vehicle dependability study, Ivers says it’s too soon to say the automaker has necessarily reached the end of the road to redemption.
“They’re not Toyota yet,” said Ivers. “They’ve got a long way to go but the evidence lends credibility that they’re moving in the right direction.”
Several automakers are placing big bets on the durability of their cars and trucks by offering long-term warranties that cover powertrains, and in some cases, the entire vehicle. It’s a gamble that could cost the automakers millions of dollars in warranty-covered repair costs if their vehicles don’t hold up.
“There will be a moment of truth in the future as to who can actually stand by their warranties,” said Ivers.
Chrysler spokesman Sam Locricchio says the automaker’s quality improvements have resulted in a nearly 50 percent reduction in warranty costs since 1998.
The company expects to see the full effects of its quality initiatives by 2006, he said.
Consumers closely watch long-term durability ratings. J.D. Power found that 52 percent of new car buyers say long-term durability is among their most important considerations in choosing a new vehicle.
It's important to realize what is being measured, and how large the differences are. I wouldn't base too much on the IQS.
My full critique:
Critique of J.D. Power's IQS
Edit: Just noticed that this is from 2003. Might want to update it.
I'll add that for many new intros I have seen high repair rates in the first month or two, then steady improvement as the manufacturer identifies and fixes problems. J.D. Power often surveys vehicles bought after the first few months. Especially if the model was introduced in the spring or early fall.
My full critique:
Critique of J.D. Power's IQS
Edit: Just noticed that this is from 2003. Might want to update it.
I'll add that for many new intros I have seen high repair rates in the first month or two, then steady improvement as the manufacturer identifies and fixes problems. J.D. Power often surveys vehicles bought after the first few months. Especially if the model was introduced in the spring or early fall.
Last edited:
