Just in: Latest JD Power initial quality survey winners and losers

The way in which technology is integrated into new-vehicle design, particularly interior features and controls, is considered by consumers to be as important to quality as are defects and malfunctions, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Initial Quality StudySM (IQS) released today. The study is in its 20th year.

The Initial Quality Study, which serves as the industry benchmark for new-vehicle quality measured at 90 days of ownership, has been completely redesigned for 2006 to capture problems experienced by owners in two distinct categories—quality of design and quality of production (defects and malfunctions).

“New vehicles today are often packed with new technologies that unfortunately can be complicated and frustrating for the average consumer when their integration is not well executed,” said Joe Ivers, executive director of quality and customer satisfaction research for J.D. Power and Associates. “In the eyes of consumers, design flaws can have as much of an impact on their perceptions of quality as can a defect. Yet, many manufacturers have tended to address quality solely on the plant floor without considering design factors.”

Based on both design quality and production quality considerations, the study finds that automakers can vary widely in their performance on these two components. Brands with the fewest defects and malfunctions include BMW, Chrysler, Hyundai, Lexus, Porsche and Toyota. Brands with the fewest design problems include GMC, Hyundai, Jaguar, Lexus, Nissan and Porsche.

“Without considering both quality factors, one might fail to recognize vehicles that are, in fact, excellent in certain ways,” said Ivers. “For example, BMW vehicles have among the fewest defects and malfunctions, along with Toyota. But BMW approaches controls and displays in a way that creates some problems for customers, leading to more design-related problems overall than Toyota incurs. Automakers differ significantly in how they define quality and what parts of the organization they hold accountable for it. Clearing both critical quality hurdles is an accomplishment experienced by only a limited number of brands.”

2006 IQS Ranking Highlights

Lexus and Toyota models continue to dominate initial quality rankings, capturing 11 out of 19 segment awards in 2006. Lexus models rank highest in every segment in which they compete. In addition, the LS 430 ties the Porsche Cayman for having the fewest quality problems in the industry. Other top-ranking Lexus models include: IS 250/IS 350, ES 330, SC 430, GX 470 and LX 470.

Toyota remains a quality benchmark, capturing five model-level awards—for the Corolla, Solara, Camry, Highlander and Sequoia—more than any other non-luxury brand.

Porsche and Lexus lead the luxury brands, while Hyundai, Toyota and Honda set the pace among non-luxury brands. Averaging just 91 problems per 100 (PP100) vehicles, Porsche tops the overall nameplate rankings. Porsche’s success can be partly attributed to the all-new Cayman, which tops the compact premium sporty car segment. Porsche is followed in the rankings by Lexus, Hyundai, Toyota and Jaguar, respectively.

Hyundai ranks among the top three nameplates in the study for the first time in the history of IQS. Highlights include a top ranking for the Hyundai Tucson in the compact multi-activity vehicle (MAV) segment, and top-three segment performances for the redesigned Sonata and all-new Azera, as well as the Elantra and Tiburon.

Honda also maintains its position as a quality leader. Although Honda does not receive any awards outright, five Honda models rank among the top three of their respective segments.

Other nameplates receiving model awards in 2006 include Chevrolet, Chrysler, Ford, Kia, Mazda, Pontiac and Suzuki.

Assembly Plant Awards

Toyota receives a total of four assembly plant quality awards for producing vehicles yielding the fewest defects, including the Platinum Plant Quality Award for its Iwate, Japan, plant, producer of the Lexus ES 330. The Iwate plant averages just 32 PP100. Plant awards are based solely on scores for defects.

Among North and South American plants, the General Motors Oshawa #2 plant in Ontario, Canada, which produces the Buick LaCrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix, receives the Gold Plant Quality Award for a second consecutive year. Toyota’s Georgetown, Ky., plant, which produces the Avalon, Camry and Solara Coupe/Convertible, and DaimlerChrysler’s Windsor, Ontario, Canada plant, which produces the Pacifica, Town & Country, Caravan and Grand Caravan, tie for the Silver Plant Quality Award.

In the Asia Pacific region, Toyota’s Higashi-Fuji, Japan, plant, which produces the Lexus SC 430, receives the Silver Plant Quality Award. Toyota’s Kyushu, Japan, plant, which produces the Lexus IS 250/IS 350, Lexus RX 330/400h and Toyota Highlander/Highlander Hybrid, and American Honda’s Saitama, Japan, plant, which produces the Acura RL, Acura TSX and Honda CR-V, tie for the Bronze Plant Quality Award.

Magna Steyr, the Graz, Austria, plant that assembles under contract for traditional manufacturers, receives the Gold Plant Quality Award for Europe. Magna Steyr produces the BMW X3, Mercedes-Benz E-Class/Wagon and the Saab 9-3 Convertible. BMW’s Dingolfing, Germany, plant, which produces the BMW 5, 6 and 7 Series, receives the Silver Plant Quality Award, and Porsche’s Valmet, Finland, plant, which produces the Cayman and Boxster, receives the Bronze Plant Quality Award.

The 2006 Initial Quality Study is based on responses from 63,607 purchasers and lessees of new 2006 model-year cars and trucks surveyed after 90 days of ownership. The redesigned IQS is based on a new 217-question battery—up from 135 in previous years—to provide manufacturers with richer information to improve problem determination and drive product improvement. The study also groups models in a revised J.D. Power and Associates vehicle segmentation list.

The 2006 study has been redesigned for the first time since 1998. Improvements to the study include:

An enhanced questionnaire for owners to aid in identification of both defect and design problems

Expanded coverage of new technologies
Additional details about the problems reported to help OEMs better identify how to address them
For more detailed findings on new-vehicle quality performance as well as model photos and specs, visit the J.D. Power Consumer Center. www.jdpower.com

Click here to view the pdf

Thanks to Plano_A4 for the tip

PlanoA4 - 6/7/2006 2:11:00 PM

+1 Boost

Note that Hyundai is higher than Toyota and Porsche is ranked higher than Lexus. This is a more elaborate survey than before so you can not compare to previous years.

dblo7 - 6/7/2006 2:26:53 PM

+1 Boost

Lexus/Toyota car fans rejoice!!! lol So MB is still trying to find its way on that damn list. Audi got no mention either. Give it to the Japanese, they get it right. If only the UAW can learn something from the Japanese :-P

GM has Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC both above industry average. Ford is just below but Lincoln above.

With European models being lower then Ford. I am sure it has allot to do with the Design aspect. If you can't figure out the damn car, don't buy it!!! :-)

PlanoA4 - 6/7/2006 2:52:54 PM

+1 Boost

This year is a twist on previous rankings. It used to be purely on issues reported in the first 90 days. The differences became so few that it was revised in the 90’s to incorporate design issues to show a bigger spread. Now the question count has been revised again and now really is more about both design issues and mechanical issues.

For example:

A Hyundai might have a rattle that needs to be fixed in the first 90 days, and that is it. So it get a ding. The car is basically simple so no design issues are noted.


A Honda for example has no assembly issues what so ever. But owners don't particularly like the cup holder locations and the radio control knob functions. It gets two dings.

What does this mean? We still need more details as to repairs vs. design issues to be totally clear.

I do agree in the overall approach to classify them though.

This will make designers look fully at usability and learning curves more. Does a BMW really need 16 different suspension settings plus 15 different tuning parameters? Probably not. But a selection of those parameters in a car of that class is desired and expected.

Please do not confuse these scores with a quality issue of any make, that can no longer be held true. They are not differentiated so any line you thought there was, is gone forever. It is now more of a statement of car design and buyer expectations of that car.

Marketing at its finest. The average person will never look at the details, mearly the scores to make a decision. It is all about a statistic no matter how real world it is.

PlanoA4 - 6/7/2006 3:07:46 PM

+1 Boost

Quote: No MB, no Audi, no BMW

Our more complex cars tend to rank lower and always have. The Germans typically don't dumb down to the least common denominator. I guess the pacific rim companies tend engineer to a lower common denominator when it come to interfacing with the driver.

PlanoA4 - 6/7/2006 4:21:05 PM

+1 Boost

Interesting, but these cars will filter down to the public at large so what the heck consumer wins.

The Koreans are coming online just as the Japanese American plants are starting to experience issues. I know the Japanese will get their act together soon, but I still see them taking a hit over the next year or two because of this, and a dip in the VDS will probably be reflected over the next two years. This may not be the only time in the near future that Toyota/Lexus gets outranked on these surveys. Life is very difficult at the top.

This is a golden time for the Koreans to establish themselves as a quality icon and entrench in the American market. This is exactly what Toyota did to the Americans several decades ago. The only difference is Toyota will not rollover, it is merely a bump in the road for them.

wwww - 6/7/2006 6:00:40 PM

+1 Boost

Didn't the Sequoia and Avalon required call backs, Sequoia for a rear axle which might break apart and the avalon for some other parts being faulty. I believe autospies had an article or 2 about these issues. Also interesting to see is that Chyrsler is placed quite high above the industries average? While MB is signifantly lower?

So does this suggest that Chrysler parts (which some of them are already mercedes old parts) are more reliable than MB? So according to this survey, MB should use all chrysler parts and a full intergration will make both brands above industry standards or maybe eventually over taking toyota/lexus like porsche?

very interesting survey/ results by JD Power

MercBasher - 6/7/2006 7:22:27 PM

+1 Boost

-M-

An alternative strategy for M-B might be to stop selling so many different body styles, and so many different engine choices and such a long list of options relative to competitors.

M-B could make more options standard, reduce the number of engine choices, delete the R class, the e Class wagon, and limit the number of AMG variants to a couple of vehicles and not the entire line. Why? well it would free up engineering, and reduce complexity in manufacture - and enable resources to be applied to fixing the problems with the remaining core products. Simple really!

MercBasher - 6/7/2006 7:26:34 PM

+1 Boost

Wow the results were outstanding for Toyota - it took 11 out of 19 categories. I didn't see M-B, Audi or BMW getting any category wins!

Top three models per segment
Car Segments

Sub-Compact Car: Kia Rio/Rio Cinco and Suzuki Aerio (tie)
Compact Car: Toyota Corolla
Compact Sporty Car: Mazda MX-5 Miata
Compact Premium Sporty Car: Porsche Cayman
Entry Premium Car: Lexus IS 250/IS 350
Midsize Premium Car: Lexus ES 330
Large Premium Car: Lexus LS 430
Premium Sporty Car: Lexus SC 430
Midsize Sporty Car: Toyota Solara
Midsize Car: Toyota Camry
Large Car: Pontiac Grand Prix

Truck / Multi-Activity Vehicle (MAV) Segments

Compact MAV: Hyundai Tucson
Midsize MAV: Toyota Highlander
Large MAV: Toyota Sequoia
Midsize Premium MAV: Lexus GX 470
Large Premium MAV: Lexus LX 470
Large Pickup: Chevrolet Silverado LD
Midsize Pickup: Ford Ranger
Van: Chrysler Town & Country

Source: J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Initial Quality Study

Ben55 - 6/8/2006 12:13:10 AM

+1 Boost

I guess he underestimated how gullible Americans are. Nobody in their right mind outside the US would ever buy a 100k Toyota.

Even the Japanese are turning to the Germans when it comes to expensive luxury cars. Wake up buddy the US is not the World.

atomicbri - 6/8/2006 10:41:28 AM

+1 Boost

This Index is not about the overall quality of the vehicle 5 yrs down the line. This survey is about how much you like your car you purchased in its first 90 days!!! I have received one of these surveys when I bought my MINI and it had things like, do you like the cup holders.... nothing to mention has your axle fallen off, or how many recalls has your vehicle had..... This IS ABOUT INITIAL PERCEIVED QUALITY of the vehicle YOU bought... I wish someone would come out with a after the first 2 years of ownership survey and then maybe we could get a clearer picture of it all

atomicbri - 6/8/2006 10:42:45 AM

+1 Boost

This survey is rubbish.

MercBasher - 6/8/2006 7:11:30 PM

+1 Boost

Atomicbri: buy or borrow a subscription to Consumer Reports. AutoSpies tends to ignore the CR surveys which focus on reliability for each year (not just the two years you requested). Consumer Reports can give you details by vehicle, by model year for the last 6 or 8 model years . . . in case you were wondering M-B products are consistently rated as dogs, although there has been a little improvement in the last couple of years.

wwww - 6/9/2006 12:05:19 AM

+1 Boost

To a certain level I do agree with your comment about MB's extensive new product line. One of the problems with the recent MB's bad reputation was due to their shift in product design, namely interior, material use, new electronics, replacement of a majority of parts with new design. Dials, Gauges, buttons, mechanism. These all happened after in 2000 when it introduced the new body styles. the 1990's versions were quite well built cuz the parts and mechanisms were well tested and refined through time. So this switch/transitional era of new technology etc will need some time to cope. And my prediction is that the upcoming body styles the New S, ML etc followed by C, E etc would be much improved since the faulty parts are replaced and the transitional time of their parts is over.

The new introduction of models and engiinie did help widen the market and influenced other manufacturers to follow like the R class, now with a BMW concept going head to head and the CLS was great success, int he logn run it does help the brand esp with the wealthy baby boomers who are all in mid life crisis and shoppign for a car is one of the ways to make them feel satisfied (researched showed).

As for Engines, MB had a long history of multiple engine tyles, just that most of them are in Europe and Asian and North America only had a few limited ones. Did you know there is actually a SLK200 AMG (packaged) in Asia? They offer solutions to different regions where not everyone needs 0-100km in 5 sec. Also MB's new engiines are more efficient and are modifying to match the 7speed Auto (which is to be used throughout the product line in exception of CVTs). My only comment is for MB using BIG engines, I wish they could follow what Bimmers do and stress their engine for that extra potential (M5, M6) unless the ideology of Bigger is Better (in numeric form) still applies to North American standards. Is all about Marketing!

PlanoA4 - 6/12/2006 2:50:38 PM

+1 Boost

Took honors yes in 11 out of 19. But that is the first 90 days only.... and if you expect less of your vehivce you have less complaints.

The figures mearly are an indication of how well you hit your target. When a engine explodes and marginal cup holder placement ranks the same. I think there is a difference there somewhere.

PlanoA4 - 6/13/2006 10:55:18 AM

+1 Boost

This is a commentary that IMHO summarizes the problems with JD Powers:

J.D. Power's research has helped consumers by pressuring vehicle manufacturers to improve the reliability of the cars and trucks they sell. However in J.D. Power's case there are reasons for concern.

1. Motivation

In contrast, far and away the #1 goal at J.D. Power is to make money. Now, there is nothing wrong with seeking to make money in itself. This is what businesses are supposed to do. But it becomes an issue when the pursuit of profits not only limits the extent to which consumers receive helpful information, but can actually encourage distorted consumer perceptions of the information that is provided.

This should not have come as a surprise. I have a number of friends in the automotive market research industry, where everyone tends to know everyone else. Over the years I've heard quite a bit about J.D. Power's basic strategy. To begin with, its focus is on manufacturers because that's where the big money is.

The consumer site provides consumers with just enough information to give the J.D. Power name a strong reputation. They then make the big bucks by selling the manufacturers more detailed information, rights to use J.D. Power's results in advertising, special interim studies to see if quality has improved, and consulting services that advise how to improve one's scores.

In the end, you can always count on J.D. Power to tailor the quality and quantity of the information it releases to the public so that its profits are maximized. It does not care if consumers' perceptions are distorted. It does not care about any unfair impact on the manufacturers. All it cares about is how many millions it can pressure the manufacturers into forking over.

2. IQS and Reliability

J.D. Power collects data at two time points. The Initial Quality Study (IQS) surveys vehicle owners after 90 days of ownership. The Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) does the same after three years of ownership. The VDS used to survey consumers after five years of ownership, but a couple years ago this was changed to three years to better suit manufacturers' needs. Once a vehicle design is more than three years old manufacturers rarely update it, so reliability information on older vehicles is of no use to them.

One issue with this approach is that people often associate the IQS numbers with reliability, when it is more a measure of assembly quality. Through inspection at the plant and/or dealership can significantly reduce this number. IQS might be a good predictor of long-term reliability, and the VDS might be a good predictor of even longer-term reliability, but to my knowledge J.D. Power has not presented evidence to support this common inference.

3. What counts as a problem? A few years ago Hummer and MINI protested because their vehicles received low IQS scores because of poor fuel economy and awful cupholders, respectively. These weren't things as the dealer could fix, as the were endemic to the vehicles' designs. But because consumsers reported them as problems, J.D. Power counted them.

Some consumers would like all sources of dissatisfaction to count. Others would only want to know the rate of repairable issues. With J.D. Power's scores there's no way to separate the two. Ultimately, it's not clear what is being measured.

As of June 2006, J.D. Power has broadened what its IQS study measures to include "design quality" in addition to the "production quality" measured in past IQS studies. What is "design quality"? I haven't yet found a clear definition, but as far as I can tell it refers to the ease of use and perceived quality of the car's various bits. "Production quality," on the other hand, refers to how often things break and need to be repaired. These are two very different things, and ideally would be reported in two different stats. By combining them in one stat, J.D. Power makes it unclear what any specific score represents. Worse, many people will continue to assume that IQS represents how much trouble a car is likely to be, when the latest changes only make this further from the truth.

4. Dots

Like Consumer Reports', J.D. Power on its consumer site rates models on a five-point scale. (Model-level absolute numbers with a few exceptions are reserved for the manufacturers.) Their one to five dot ratings appear simple to understand, but they conceal far more than they convey. If one vehicle has a three dot rating, and another has a five dot rating, what will this really mean in terms of the number of trips to the shop and the number of days spent there?.

5. Only averages

Also, like Consumer Reports', J.D. Power rates vehicles relative to the average. If you dig a little bit you can learn what the average is, and infer an absolute rating accordingly. The average has steadily improved over the years. But most people

PlanoA4 - 6/13/2006 11:03:22 AM

+1 Boost

5. Only averages

Also, like Consumer Reports', J.D. Power rates vehicles relative to the average. If you dig a little bit you can learn what the average is, and infer an absolute rating accordingly. The average has steadily improved over the years. But most people don't dig. As a result, many no doubt assume that a three-dot car is much less reliable than it actually is.

While perceptions are undoubtedly distorted by J.D. Power's emphasis on relative ratings, another factor is likely involved: people are afraid of getting a lemon, an unusually troublesome car or truck. Even if the average is the same for two models, the chances of getting a lemon could be far higher for one than the other. People might fear that even as the average rate of problems for domestic vehicles comes down the odds of getting a lemon remain uncomfortably high. When only averages are reported, there's no way to tell.

6. Focus on the best

J.D. Power's press releases highlight the models that scored the highest in their segments. The advertising they license is also for models that win their awards for being the best. In a similar vein, they have for some time only publicly released numbers only for those brands (Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford) that score above the industry average.

This emphasis on the top scorers leads to an over-emphasis on reliability. In the absence of information, most people assume the worst. So they'll be more likely to a buy a top scoring model to be on the safe side.

But how much worse are the models that fall around the average? What if the tenth model from the top will require one extra trip to the shop in the first five years of ownership? For some people its advantages might outweigh the cost and inconvenience of an extra trip. But using J.D. Power's publicly-released information it is not possible to make this judgment

Lexus - 6/13/2006 6:30:22 PM

+1 Boost

What more can I says, Toyota/Lexus rock to the bone...LOL:) ah..ha.ha.ha.

Lexus for Life

PlanoA4 - 6/14/2006 10:03:58 AM

+1 Boost

Not a conspiracy, but actual facts. If you dispute them then disprove them.

Basically all boils down to money, JD Power makes it by giving facts. The conclusions you draw are different from reality.

Example:

Overall IQS score for Hyundai and Toyota as list to the consumer

Hyundai is 102
Toyota is 106

Hyundai is better more reliable car right? not really

Hyundai has 53 manufacturing defect per 100 (read that as repairs) and 41 design issues (Things the owner did not like in the design)

Toyota has 52 manufacturing defect per 100 (repairs) but has 47 design issues.

Since these are averages you simply can't just add them together.

Actually the Toyota is mathmatically a more reliable car. However since we draw no differences between the two the issue is clouded, on purpose.

Always be informed don't take these things at face value.

PlanoA4 - 6/14/2006 10:13:47 AM

+1 Boost

Oh yes it also work this way

Lexus was unseated this year by Porsche
Porsche 91 issues PP100
Lexus 93 issues PP100

Porsche is a better car...but ... wait lets see

Porsche has 49 Manufacturing defects PP100 (repairs needed)
Lexus has 42

But the Lexus has more complicated controls (or so the owners seem to thingk so) this happend
Lexus scored 45 defects in design PP100
Porsche scored 35 defects in design PP100

So who wins?

I guess you can infer that the intellegence of the typical owner also can influence the process. If Porsches are owned by more technically savvy individuals, they might figure out the controls better than a blue haired granny in a Lexus.

This example was purely for demonstration not really the typically Lexus opwner... LOL