This survey has some surprising and not-so-surprising results in both what people's perceived quality and actual quality of automobile makes are. Some are underrated and some are overrated.

Both Honda and Acuras are among those makes whose actual quality meets or exceeds perceived quality.

The survey doesn't say which cars are of the highest quality, however. It claims, for example, that the Mercury is the most underrated car.

Not surprisingly, some people have higher expectations of their cars than what their car's actual quality delivers. Overrated cars include Land Rover, Mercedes, VW, BMW, Volvo, Audi, and so on. Why am I not surprised!

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosins...utos-36758.htm

 

That's a great find. The comment about Lexus surprised me...who the hell gets into a Lexus and expects less than the reputation and perception that Lexus had worked hard to earn for itself?! I can see that happening in a Mercury and an Infiniti...but a Lexus? Don't get me wrong, I still think Lexus is overrated, but certainly not expecting anything bad about its cars, either.

 

Nice find.

Actually, IMO the impression about Honda and Acura from this article is the opposite of what you thought: I think it's surprising and even shocking that Acura and (even more so) Honda didn't do much better. I think most of us would have thought they'd be right near the top of a study like this. They're not. Acura is only a little above average, and Honda is barely above average.

But (also IMO) there's more to the story, which puts the impression back where we would have hoped: The so-called "actual quality" (i.e. the "reality") is based on the JD Power surveys, which, as we've discussed a number of times, doesn't use a very good definition of reliability or quality. If they had used any one of a number of other criteria (e.g. Consumer Reports' reliability), both Acura and Honda would have been higher on this study, probably MUCH higher.

 

There is a BIG difference between Quality and Reliability. To put Buick or Mercury in a list with Quality in the heading is just wrong. They may be very reliably and fill transportation need that there intended market can live with, but to call that Quality, no way.

 

I don't understand these stats. Are they trying to say that only 1.2% of Honda owners are happy with the quality of their car? Or 0% (as in nobody) is impressed with the quality of their Ford? But 43% of all Mercury owners were pleasantly surprised with the quality of their vehicles?

To me this looks like another piece of research that says a whole lot of nothing.

 

I'd have to disagree larchmont. to me it looks like acura and honda are not as high because people's perception is so high to start with it is hard to impress them. While for mercury, people think its crap to start w/ so many people are surprised. In this case it is a testament to what people expect from Honda/Acura.

Dan Martin: The stats are saying 1.2% of Honda owners are happier than they expected to be. Not 1.2% are happy.

 

Yes, research for nothing. Another thought is to consider the typical Mercury owner. Sweeping generalities aren't exactly good, but down here the typical Mercury owner is 65+ and doesn't exhibit what I'd consider quality driving. Much less having an accurate opinion on quality.

-r

 

I agree that this is what this 'study' is saying.

 

And 2/3 of Kia owners were disappointed that thier cars didn't live up to their expectations...

Santa Rosa Steve

 

"The firm used J.D. Power and Associates' 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study, which tracks reliability over three years, and CNW Market Research's Perceived Quality Survey to figure out which brands have the most opportunity to change customers' minds."

I'd interpret this as showing, for example, that the reliability of Mercury is not as bad as buyers expect and that Land Rover is much worse. Note that both Mercury and Land Rover are Ford products, so does Morgan Stanley think I should buy some Ford stock because of this? Or should I short some Ford stock?

My own expectations of Land Rover, Kia, VW and Hyundai are so bad to begin with that I wouldn't buy one.

They indicate that Acura, Honda, Lexus and Toyota exceeded buyers' expectations, which were probably high to begin with.

They seem to have merged studies from two different sources and performed with unknown and possibly differing methodologies to come to these "conclusions". (Can we assume that the J.D. Power 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study and the CNW Market Research's Perceived Quality Survey both came to accurate conclusions?)

"GIGO", methinks some Morgan Stanley analyst has waaaaaay too much time on his (or her) hands.

 

my mom just bought a new 525. I spent about a half hour trying to convince her that she should have gotten a Lexus... but she was oblivious to the fact that Japan makes good cars.

 

I think they need to do an additional study, where they look at how much more the car exceeded people's expectations as compared to the amount that they expected the car was going to exceed their expectations.

 

I don't think I'm smart enough to intepret that study

"Statistics can be used to prove anything. 14% of all people know that." - HJS

 

And 97.3% of all statistics are made up.