2019 JD Power Initial Quality

[wemay]

Originally Posted by PimTac
JD Power is absolutely meaningless, unless your brand is at the top of the list then it's great.

Changes happen on vehicles every year. Waiting for new tech to become bug free may be fruitless.



100%. Hyun/KIA just introduced a CVT into their lineup. I'm sure the 2020 results will look different for them.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by grampi
Yep, if they wanted to do a study that held some meaning, they'd list the problems over a 300K mile period...
Right, because that's how long people typically keep their cars these days.

Touche. But still. What are us oddballs to do? I've only taken one vehicle to 300k... so far.

By the time a study would rack up 300K miles on a vehicle, that vehicle might already be out of production. Not very useful for someone looking to buy a new car.


And if you are buying a used car with a lot of miles, then typically the overall condition of the particular example will be more important than some reliability score. JMO.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by FordBroncoVWJeta
CHEVY JUST EARNED ANOTHER JD POWER INITIAL QUALITY AWARD!

On a side note the "Initial quality study" measures problems experienced in the first 90 days of purchase. Almost worthless in my opinion.

It is THE MOST ridiculous reliability study!
It's not a reliability study. The title clearly states "INITIAL QUALITY."

They have another study, called "Dependability Study" that looks at 3-year-old vehicles. Here it is for comparison:

I was looking for this one but couldn't find it. Thank QP

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by grampi
Yep, if they wanted to do a study that held some meaning, they'd list the problems over a 300K mile period...
Right, because that's how long people typically keep their cars these days.

Sure, people go into the dealership saying, "what's the best model you got 10, 15+yrs from now, notwithstanding people's driving habits and poor adherence to maintenance?"

Sales guy..."we've got a nice Cannondale we took in on trade"...‚

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
By the time a study would rack up 300K miles on a vehicle, that vehicle might already be out of production. Not very useful for someone looking to buy a new car.


And if you are buying a used car with a lot of miles, then typically the overall condition of the particular example will be more important than some reliability score. JMO.

Indeed. At that point it becomes a complete gamble I guess.

I suspect I'm going to just start buying 10 year old cars. At least one knows their issues going in.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by FordBroncoVWJeta
CHEVY JUST EARNED ANOTHER JD POWER INITIAL QUALITY AWARD!

On a side note the "Initial quality study" measures problems experienced in the first 90 days of purchase. Almost worthless in my opinion.

It is THE MOST ridiculous reliability study!
It's not a reliability study. The title clearly states "INITIAL QUALITY."

They have another study, called "Dependability Study" that looks at 3-year-old vehicles. Here it is for comparison:

Yeah, not reliability, "initial quality."
Point is: what is purpose except click and buy vehicle?
There are a lot of stuff that have initial quality, but once you buy them and get homw, they disintegrate.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by grampi
Yep, if they wanted to do a study that held some meaning, they'd list the problems over a 300K mile period...
Right, because that's how long people typically keep their cars these days.

Obviously, a 90 day test sample isn't going to tell squat about reliability. What's your suggestion? Long term testing is the only accurate way to tell...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by grampi
Obviously, a 90 day test sample isn't going to tell squat about reliability.
Again, it is not a reliability study. Please read the title.

Quote
What's your suggestion? Long term testing is the only accurate way to tell...
They have a 3-year-old vehicle study that I already linked to up above.

The problem with long term testing is that, well, it takes a long time to do it right, so by the time you've completed the test, the results are useless because you can't buy that product new anymore. You can't just take a new car out on the hwy and rack up 300K miles in 1 year as that would not be representative of how people use their vehicles. Even if you rack up 20K miles a year, simulating actual usage, it would still take 15 years to do a 300K mile test.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by grampi
Obviously, a 90 day test sample isn't going to tell squat about reliability.
Again, it is not a reliability study. Please read the title.

Quote
What's your suggestion? Long term testing is the only accurate way to tell...
They have a 3-year-old vehicle study that I already linked to up above.

The problem with long term testing is that, well, it takes a long time to do it right, so by the time you've completed the test, the results are useless because you can't buy that product new anymore. You can't just take a new car out on the hwy and rack up 300K miles in 1 year as that would not be representative of how people use their vehicles. Even if you rack up 20K miles a year, simulating actual usage, it would still take 15 years to do a 300K mile test.



What does initial quality mean to you? If it means I shouldn't care what happens to the car after 90 days, then it may be useful, otherwise, it's not...people want to know if what they're buying is going to be reliable over the course of their ownership...also, long term testing may not tell you about a specific model, because like you say, it would probably not be made anymore, but it certainly tells you about the brand. If a particular model had no, to relatively few problems within a specified amount of time, it's a pretty good bet it's replacement will likely be just as reliable...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by grampi
What does initial quality mean to you? If it means I shouldn't care what happens to the car after 90 days, then it may be useful, otherwise, it's not...people want to know if what they're buying is going to be reliable over the course of their ownership...
Initial quality is just one data point in a purchase decision. It is not meant to be a sole determinant of what to buy. All it tells you is how likely you are to have to bring your new car back to the dealership to fix some stuff that slipped through quality control at the factory - things like loose grommets, rattles, paint blemishes, some light bulb not working, dead speaker, infotainment system acting up, etc. However, the more of such issues a new car has, this might indicate lower overall quality and more problems down the road.

Quote
also, long term testing may not tell you about a specific model, because like you say, it would probably not be made anymore, but it certainly tells you about the brand. If a particular model had no, to relatively few problems within a specified amount of time, it's a pretty good bet it's replacement will likely be just as reliable...
Yeah, I wish that was the case, but I just don't believe it is so. Today, with each new vehicle model a lot of new technology gets introduced, some of it taking time to iron out while customers are used as guinea pigs... think of direct injection, CVT, driver assistance technologies, etc. This makes reliability of new/replacement models unpredictable.

 

[PimTac]

Initial quality might have been useful in the seventies and early eighties when cars were on dealers lots with missing parts and obvious defects.

 

[CKN]

I know of many owners who have high millage Hyundais with absolutely zero issues. NONE.

One of my reason to buy a new Santa Fe XL in 2017.

It's also curious that the new KIA Telluride sales numbers suggest KIA has a hit. So maybe KIA can keep up the quality-where Subaru's quality sank with increased sales numbers.

 

[philipp10]

Wonder if anyone has ever done this study? Take JD Powers numbers and lay them on top of CR's 5 years in and see if they correlate. If they do, that would mean something.....

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by CKN
I know of many owners who have high millage Hyundais with absolutely zero issues. NONE.

One of my reason to buy a new Santa Fe XL in 2017.

It's also curious that the new KIA Telluride sales numbers suggest KIA has a hit. So maybe KIA can keep up the quality-where Subaru's quality sank with increased sales numbers.


I have had only one mechanical issue with mine, which the dealer remedied in the 10yrs, 165k+ miles I've owned it (single owner). After 165k miles i burn barely a lick of oil between changes..not even to have to worry about topping off.

Other than that it's the occasional squeaky door which I recently, finally got nailed. The factory paint still looks great, a little faded but still good and the upholstery and carpeting still looks good even having 2 kids. The only parts I've replaced are the normal wear and tear items for the most part. I honestly couldn't be more pleased with my purchase and wouldn't hesitate to buy another. Don't ask me about the Ford Tempo I once owned...‚ or the Mitsubishi Montero in the early 2000's....‚

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Initial quality might have been useful in the seventies and early eighties when cars were on dealers lots with missing parts and obvious defects.

My brand new Z06 was delivered with a cracked front fender...2011. My brand new 370Z would grind the first 1-2 shift of the day in cold, rainy weather, and yes, I had been driving manuals for years before buying it, and once I noted it made a conscious effort to be 100% sure the clutch was on the firewall before shifting. My brand new CX5 is the only brand new, off the lot, "zero mile" (it had 585 on it actually, I guess it was driven/delivered?) that has had zero flaws. 1 out of 3 ain't bad?

-Dealer cost on a new fender for the Z06 was $17XX + paint + body time. They handled it, in conjunction with me calling Dave Tatman at Bowling Green and having a new, already factory painted fender shipped to the dealer. Normally this is not an option and it would have been about a $3000 repair.

-Nissan never did anything about my 370Z, I put MT-85 redline fluid in it which helped. Some. By 17K miles, I was embattled with NNA over brake rotors warping every few hundred miles of STREET driving, with no sign of adverse wear on pads or hot spots, etc. It took months and half a grand of my money to resolve.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by philipp10
Wonder if anyone has ever done this study? Take JD Powers numbers and lay them on top of CR's 5 years in and see if they correlate. If they do, that would mean something.....


I have, and they do. Especially with regards to FCA products. Always bottom tier. Every study. Toyota/Lexus/Subaru/Mazda all kindof jockey around in the upper half. Ford and GM in the middle half. Of course some years you had terrible/stellar models which would break out of that manufacturer's "norm".

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by PimTac
Initial quality might have been useful in the seventies and early eighties when cars were on dealers lots with missing parts and obvious defects.

My brand new Z06 was delivered with a cracked front fender...2011. My brand new 370Z would grind the first 1-2 shift of the day in cold, rainy weather, and yes, I had been driving manuals for years before buying it, and once I noted it made a conscious effort to be 100% sure the clutch was on the firewall before shifting. My brand new CX5 is the only brand new, off the lot, "zero mile" (it had 585 on it actually, I guess it was driven/delivered?) that has had zero flaws. 1 out of 3 ain't bad?

-Dealer cost on a new fender for the Z06 was $17XX + paint + body time. They handled it, in conjunction with me calling Dave Tatman at Bowling Green and having a new, already factory painted fender shipped to the dealer. Normally this is not an option and it would have been about a $3000 repair.

-Nissan never did anything about my 370Z, I put MT-85 redline fluid in it which helped. Some. By 17K miles, I was embattled with NNA over brake rotors warping every few hundred miles of STREET driving, with no sign of adverse wear on pads or hot spots, etc. It took months and half a grand of my money to resolve.





The most common phrase of the salesman I. The seventies was "we will take care of that before you drive it off the lot." I went through that a few times before I bought our first Mitsubishi. It was absolutely perfect. Not a defect anywhere. That prompted me to buy a Toyota which was the same as well as another Mitsubishi, also perfect.

When we purchased our Mazda I gave it a good inspection top to bottom and it was perfect. I expect nothing less now.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Initial quality might have been useful in the seventies and early eighties when cars were on dealers lots with missing parts and obvious defects.

I hate to say it, but this is 100% true.
Honda and Toyota did not steal the car business from GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The Big 3 gave it away.

 

[glock19]

I would love to see these studies broken out by model. For example, I always see GMC lagging way behind Chevrolet even thought some of their models are mechanically the same. I'm sure one bad model is dragging down entire brands.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Initial quality might have been useful in the seventies and early eighties when cars were on dealers lots with missing parts and obvious defects.

Obvious defects are easy to spot and correct by the dealer, even before a client takes delivery, because, well, they're obvious. I suspect this JD Power study looks at the less obvious ones that are only discovered once the owner has had some time to spend with the car. For example, would you easily notice your heated steering wheel was not working at the time of purchase, if you purchased your vehicle in the middle of summer?

My car has heated rear seats. I've owned it for over a year and I haven't yet verified if they actually work. It's things like that.

Like you stated, most cars now don't have major (obvious) defects, so the focus is now on the minor ones. According to JD Power, industry average is around 100 problems per 100 vehicles. This means some cars may have no such defects at all while others may have several. If yours was perfect, you were more lucky than others, or you just did not notice them.