J.D. Power Releases 2010 Initial Quality Rankings

so, just what type of problems were these? how big of 'problems' were they. Were they real problems or imagined by overly picky owners?

For the average to be 109 problems out of 100 cars in just the first 90 days, to me that is a lot. Is there just a dozen or so people out there having 10 problems each in the first 3 months? In 7 and 9 years my last two new vehicles never ever once went back to the dealer and have only had maintenance and wear items replaced in that time.

I've always thought that it is likely that the brands known for having less problems do worse on these because people expect so much more from them. Is that what puts them in the middle rather than the top? Or is the quality just imagined?
Where as the brands less known for being touble free just don't have as much expected from them. A rattle here or there is just ignored on them.

What is "Ram?" As in Dodge Ram? Why no "F150" brand or "Silverado/Sierra" brand. GMC is there, yes, but the Silverado is mixed in with Chevy, obviously. And F150 with Ford.

@kevm14:
Ram is it's own brand now because Fiat wants greater separation among the divisions of Chrysler.

tmanz:
They are everything from electrical issues to mechanical failures. If you look at the results most new cars score 4.5-5 stars with regards to initial mechanical quality, but there are quite a few electrical issues (particularly with new infotainment systems). A large portion of the score also goes towards "design" categories. These are how people rate the way cars look, how easy controls are to use, how smooth/quiet/refined the ride is, etc.

I disagree with your assumption, though. To my eyes the cars in the top 10 are the ones most known for being trouble free (with the exception of Toyota which probably did so poorly just because of its recent recall woes and Volvo which I've never heard good things about). I for one know that people buying Lexus, Mercedes, and Porsche vehicles are particularly finicky and complain about every little issue, that makes it all the more impressive that they are where they are.

I was thinking along the same lines as Mercedesfan, someone who just paid 60,000+ USD for a car will make it very clear if the car dissapoints him in any little way, while someone who just paid the bare minimum for a dirt cheap car will probably not mind so much.

Kudos to MB for turning around their ship, and to the cluster of FoMoCo brands for doing so well...

Interesting that Land Rover is the absolute worst yet their Range Rover is one of the best scoring in large premium SUVs. This indicates that the 2 other Land Rover products must be abysmal to sink Land Rover's overall score.

tmanz,
ur so right, nobody has 109 problems in the first 3 YEARS of ownership, let alone 3 months
its just really hard to believe
the only people you can listen to about reliability is Consumer Reports
now that I think about it maybe JD power just puts random numbers down
so BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@kernals12,

You misunderstood their ranking system. The industry average is 109 problems per 100 vehicles. In other words, the average car will have 1.09 problems in the first 3 months of ownership. With Porsche, Acura, Mercedes, Lexus, Ford and Honda most cars won't have a single issue in the first 3 months.

OK GM fanbois you are up! Start spinning! Now this is not CR so no whining! EVERY single GM make is below average. You guys always say that JD Power is the one to watch (its BS since it accepts advertising) so now what do you say?

mercedesfan: "With Porsche, Acura, Mercedes, Lexus, Ford and Honda most cars won't have a single issue in the first 3 months. "

Not correct. Most will have an issue. Some (about 20%) won't. Of course that assumes that issues are evenly distributed, as opposed to a few cars skewing the balance.

None of this matters anyway. If someone doesn't think the car was clean enough, it counts the same as the transmission dropping out.

@brn,

True, I over-stated.

"If someone doesn't think the car was clean enough, it counts the same as the transmission dropping out."

That, however, is not correct either. Design issues are not weighed the same as actual quality issues. If you research their rating method it actually makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying JD Power doesn't have its flaws, but it is a valid resource, along with Consumer Reports, in which to garner a window into what a car's quality may be.

Interesting points:

1. Ford is in the top five, and the only American company up there.

2. GM still below average...

3. Hyundai might not be the greatest thing ever...but they have some competitively priced cars that are still doing well in reliability rankings.

Less than ONE problem per vehicle separates best from worst.

Ranked number 1 in their class:
Honda Crosstour
Hyundai Accent
Ford Focus
Scion XB

I'd take a Land Rover, Jaguar, VW, or MINI anyday over these winners!

I still don't understand where the data come from. I keep hearing stories about unreliable VW/Audi and BMW, but most of my friends drive these cars and neither had a problem with them, except for the minor misunderstanding which could have been avoided just by reading a manual. What can possibly go wrong with a car during the 90 day period? Someone forgot to add oil after the first few thousand miles and the low oil light came on or I can't even think of something that could possibly happen. I still see, as I mentioned before, a lot of old VWs and Audis driving around, in fact most of them are in a very good shape. My moms Camry 2006 is starting to fall apart and my neighbors Accord had its engine replaced due to the engine failure after 2 years of owning a car. JD Powers numbers are still a mystery to me, especially Porsche and Mercedes as the most reliable cars. I think I'll trust my own observations.

I don't know if I take too much stock in JD Power or CR. I prefer to hear what regular people have to say about a car they live with on a day to day basis over a long period of time. Which is why I look to TrueDelta. Not that I don't take that info with a grain of salt, but I think there's probably less bias spread over a lot more data.

Ford has a 83 and yet Mercury has a 113?
Chrysler 122 and Dodge 130?
How come there is such a large spread between badge-engineered cars?

mercedesfan, yea I over-stated too. :) I still don't trust the variances in this survey.

roadburner: "Ford has a 83 and yet Mercury has a 113?"

Especially since Mercury tends to have better fit-n-finish than Ford. Bah!

This is BS. Lincoln which doesnt excel at any category much less in reliability is superior than Toyota/Scion/Subaru/Mitsubishi??? And Hyundai is superior than Kia, which they are EXACTLY the same cars just different bodystyle panels and badges? Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep which are the LOWEST of all the automakers in quality and reliabilty are superior than VW, Mitsubishi and MINI? Is a Hyundai Accent better than a Kia Rio, which are btw the same exact car? This is BS! Where do they get this stuff? Whoever knows about cars, know that this is BS.

the scale has been used forever, I don't understand all the concern of proper data. This isn't overall quality, its initial quality. Your VW might last a lot longer than a kia, but in the first 3 months they average more issues. This isn't reliability, long term quality. It doesn't paint the whole picture its more of a ranking system for manufacturers rather than consumers.

mirde98, this is Initial Quality, not Reliability. I also have no problem believing Lincoln beats Toyota, Scion, Subaru, and Mitsubishi. Same goes for Chrysler beating VW, Mitsubishi, and Mini. In fact, your examples are dead on with my expectations.

roadburner says:

08:42 PM, 06/17/10

Ford has a 83 and yet Mercury has a 113?
Chrysler 122 and Dodge 130?
How come there is such a large spread between badge-engineered cars?

The answer is that nowadays the spread between good and bad manufacturers is very narrow. Given sample size and such it could be that there is no statistical difference between 122 and 130 (in terms of significance). In general , all modern cars are very reliable by historical standards.

I find it more useful these days to know about specific catastrophic issues that might impact a car I'm considering buying (HPFP on a N54 engine, Blown pistons on a WRX/STI, cam follower or PCV on a VW 2.0T FSI, turbo, and so on). It's probably good if a company is moving up the rankings as indicative of a general attitude towards quality, but one should (IMO) be mostly concerned about the magnitude of potential issues and possibility of being stranded do to failures (especially if one is buying for a significant other) rather than inconveniences.

"OK GM fanbois you are up! Start spinning! Now this is not CR so no whining! EVERY single GM make is below average. You guys always say that JD Power is the one to watch (its BS since it accepts advertising) so now what do you say?"

3 of 4 GM brands beat Toyota. Thats what I would say to anyone stupid enough to think this data suggests GM's vehicles are unreliable or poor quality. Two of GMs brands also beat Nissan. Room to improve but nothing to be ashamed off either.

^^ 1487, while your statement is absolutely true, but I think you are missing the point. If a company's mentality is to compare itself with the worse and not target at the better, then it is doomed to FAIL (again).

When GM and everyone else for that matter was aiming at meeting or beating toyota's perceived quality, thats when they were at the top. I don't GM's top goal is to meet or beat toyota now. All of their brands being below industry average isn't something to be proud of.

I put little faith on initial JD power rankings. JD power in fact actually started as an industry established mostly promotional "stunt". If you want to have a better idea of vehicle quality, check consumer reports they have a larger database and instead of and its and its a trruely independent organization. Furthermore initial quality simply points out how well the vehicle comes srewed together from the factory, its correlation to long term reliability is nebulous at best.

I put little faith on initial JD power rankings. JD power in fact actually started as an industry established mostly promotional "stunt". If you want to have a better idea of vehicle quality, check consumer reports they have a larger database and instead of and its and its a trruely independent organization. Furthermore initial quality simply points out how well the vehicle comes srewed together from the factory, its correlation to long term reliability is nebulous at best.

"Thats what I would say to anyone stupid enough to think this data suggests GM's vehicles are unreliable or poor quality. Two of GMs brands also beat Nissan. Room to improve but nothing to be ashamed off either"

But not nearly as good as Ford

"Two of GMs brands also beat Nissan"

No, they did not...they are the SAME at 111

Ford is clearly the leading American car maker....even in a micro-test like the IL fleet the Fords have performed very well....GM not so much.

quote 6sptl
If you want to have a better idea of vehicle quality, check consumer reports they have a larger database and instead of and its and its a trruely independent organization. -end

CR? ROTFLMAO!

CR only samples their subscribers. CR actually has a smaller sample rate than JD Power.

I see no reason to believe that CR is any more "independent" than JD Power.

I don´t know, based on my experience with cars, I have not had any problem in the first 90 days with a brand new car.
In fact, I would be surprised as hell if I see someone with a brand new car having any problems whatsoever in just 90 days.
But thats me.

"If a company's mentality is to compare itself with the worse and not target at the better, then it is doomed to FAIL (again)."

Let's hope so, anyway...

"The answer is that nowadays the spread between good and bad manufacturers is very narrow. Given sample size and such it could be that there is no statistical difference between 122 and 130 (in terms of significance). "

That's what I was thinking; I suspect that the difference in the number of problems per 100 cars has to be five or more to be statistically significant.

Dodge Challenger is a midsize sporty car? last i've read and seen is it's a rather large car/

i cant believe about mitsubishi! obvsly i cant say about 100 cars average! but the reason i say unbelievable is beacause i also own a lancer03means around 7 year. it has never been serviced from a dealer n only been serviced at gas station(means only oil, oil filter and air filter change) and still Thank God it has no trouble. i have never taken it for repair and has never break down. (batry change 2 times 1ce break pads change which waz recently).

Where are the VW fanboys? Come on out! Time to play at explaining why VWs are STILL crap, after all these years.

Just what kind of problems are we talking about? Acura 86 out 100 have problems. Thats BS. Does it count when someone who just bought a vehicle, comes back and complains about the rough ride or tire noise on the highway. Thats just the nature of the beast not a problem. If you don't like the ride than don't buy it. Its got to be based on that, otherwise I will never buy an Acura again, nor any car.

I'll stick with consumers report. So far their right on the money with my car for problems.(which is not alot)