Has JD Power Taken The Definition Of "Quality" Too Far?

In my opinion, survey companies should use accurate names to describe the data collected. And we, as consumers, should not just jump to assumptions when we hear or read certain words.

For example, the J.D.Power "Initial Vehicle Quality" survey (I did one) simply asks a bunch of questions, and I report how I *feel* about them. This can, and DOES lead to scenarios such as (not my specific case, though):

- User found the infotainment system confusing (even though they didn't read the user manual). This counts as a "defect".

- User is not happy that the front seats don't have lumbar support, even though they knowingly purchased the seats that didn't have this feature, rather than paying the extra $1,500 to get upgraded seats with this feature. This counts as a "defect."

- User feels the transmission shifts at too high RPMs. This counts as a "defect," even though the vehicle works as designed, and this presents no mechanical problem.

Truly, this is not a "defect" report. It does not even measure "quality" in any remote sense of the word. It measures "how well the vehicle meets the customer's arbitrary and possibly irrational and unrealistic expectations". Although this is an accurate description, it's long, and it likely would not inspire consumers to buy it, or advertisers to pay for ads.

With respect to actual defects, it's much less accurate to ask someone how many defects they had rather than use an accurate metric, such as actual service incidents at the dealer. The problem here is hoping that the dealers report this info accurately rather than fudging figures, or refusing warranty work on technicalities (e.g., your user manual says you were due for your first oil change at 5,000 miles, but you got it done at 5,120 miles, so we won't honor the warranty), which would then fraudulently count as fewer "defects". Obviously, this process would work only for new cars, for items covered and serviced under warranty by the dealer.

As always, Caveat Emptor. Even with respect to surveys and what they mean.

@TheSteve "how well the vehicle meets the customer's arbitrary and possibly irrational and unrealistic expectations" is precisely it.

JD Power is NOT about quality.

They are about generating factoids that they can package and sell to a brand for use in advertising.

Their protocol is not scientific in any way.

Their "data" is far divorced from the anecdotal, subjective comments on the surveys.

You already know - that I question every "POLL" result based on lack of knowledge of what they polled - what questions they asked - who they polled - when they polled them - and other factors.

Example - a Poll of owners who bought their new car LAST WEEK is unlikely to show all the possible problems what might show up after driving the car a few miles.

People who can only afford a certain level price of car - are more likely to be satisfied with that car(Because it moves) than a person who can and does spend a lot more money for a car.

Empirical data about repairs is more important to me THAN owners complaints about repairs. AND - repair complaints are often about TIME and PEOPLE rather than the car itself.

THe fact is - today - there are very few really unreliable, unfixable cars out there. A very large percentage of problems are SOFTWARE related - not mechanical - and in fact - electrical problems have overtaken mechanical problems in warranty repairs (For more than 10 years). Wiring problems - especially multi-plexed wires - will be the basic problem. You cannot just splice INTO or butt reconnect wires anymore - most wiring now requires a special connector to splice wires back together. I could write a book on the stupid things I have seen done with wiring - including a Cadillac that would open the Passenger window every time you touched a control on the radio (THat one was fun).

And I can completely ignore claims of a car being comfortable - a person of height and size I cannot actually fit into a lot of these cars - or have to do contortions in order to get into the car. YOU really need to test the car yourself for those things.

Any data collection is only as good as the sources. If this was the only customer with this misunderstood feature, it would not register in the results. If a high percentage of owners struggle with a system then it is useful to flag this as a problem. This particular complaint points to a poor delivery process that did not run thru basic operation with the owners own phone.

It is useful to look at the more specific categories in the CR reliability survey and if it raises a concern, then dig into forums on the issues people are having.

The author's end-point is valid, but his example situation is not. JD Power assumes that a user has educated himself or herself, or has been educated, on how to properly operate the vehicle, and therefore, the feedback is based on whether something truly does or does not work.
His end-point is valid only because there is too much room for interpretation of what any individual deems unacceptable or a failure.

If accurate, this is a false assumption on their part: "JD Power assumes that a user has educated himself or herself, or has been educated, on how to properly operate the vehicle, and therefore, the feedback is based on whether something truly does or does not work."

Go to the service department of any brand and the service writer will tell you that people come in complaining of a defect and many times it is because they do not know how to operate a feature on their vehicle.

Even if the sales person goes over the features of the car, cars today are complicated and have too many features to learn in 5-10 minutes during the delivery walk around. Not only are cars complicated for millennials (who tend to be less tech phobic) but especially for their parents and grandparents that are accustomed to simpler controls.

WE have forgotten something else - that manufacturers regularly CONSTRUCT their cars JUST to do well on these tests. THe crash standards test is one that they have clearly done so - although there is NO data as yet that shows that the results of the crash data in the "controlled" environment actually has a predictive ability in the real world. I would not put it past polls to ask questions about specific "features" that not all the cars have - creating an automatic "fail".

Still - we MUST remember that the Chevrolet Vega - THe Ford Mustang II - the Dodge Omni/Ply Horizon - the Rambler - and the Corvair - among others - were chosen as Motor Trends Cars of the Year. These Exciting(?) - advanced (for their time) - mostly well styled - GEMS - Justify ignoring all such titles - and waiting a year for the bugs to get worked out.

Your first mistake was buying a chevy cruse hatchback which is ungodly expensive and a complete turd when compared to the VW Golf or comparable Subaru.. Hope you own it forever as it already is nearly worthless