The Truth About JD Power’s 2010 Vehicle Dependability Survey
#1
The Truth About JD Power’s 2010 Vehicle Dependability Survey
Interesting read.
I conduct a car reliability survey at TrueDelta.com. Since we promptly update our results four times a year, we can report on new models ahead of anyone else. Last year, we announced that the 2009 Jaguar XF was faring poorly. This provoked a blistering backlash from owners at a particular Jaguar forum. In the end, threads on reliability were deleted and future ones all but banned in the interest of preserving what remained of the UK auto industry.
The outraged owners argued that TrueDelta’s results could not be correct, since Jaguar had just been declared the most dependable make by J.D. Power. I pointed out that the VDS covers the third year of ownership, 2006 in that case, and that Jaguar had discontinued, redesigned, or replaced every model in its line save the XJ in the interim. So the results did not apply to the XF, or the current XK for that matter.
Well, J.D. Power has now released the 2010 Vehicle Dependability Survey (VDS), which covers 2007s in their third year of ownership, and, as predicted, the redesigned XK has, all by its lonesome, sunk Jaguar’s ranking from 1st to 23rd. And it’ll only get uglier once the XF is reflected in these stats in another two years.
#1 this year: Porsche. Many people will wonder how Porsche fared so well. One likely factor: Porsches are often weekend cars that aren’t driven much. J.D. Power might consider doing what TrueDelta does, and post average odometer readings. A larger factor: THERE WAS NO 2007 CAYENNE—Porsche skipped straight from 2006 to 2008. The Cayenne is likely more troublesome than the sports cars, and is certainly driven more. So don’t expect a top VDS score for Porsche next year, when the Cayenne is again part of the mix.
“Long term” for J.D. Power continues to mean “the third year of ownership.” It used to mean the fifth year, but manufacturers have little use for fifth-year data, and this survey primarily exists to serve manufacturers willing to pay large sums for detailed results.
Many car buyers, though, are much more interested in how cars fare after the 3/36 warranty ends. J.D. Power has no information for them, hoping that car buyers will accept third-year problem frequencies as a sufficient indicator of how a car will perform over the long haul. Unfortunately, in many cases it is not. TrueDelta’s data suggest that all too often cars take a turn for the worse either soon after the warranty ends or after 100,000 miles.
As usual, the public gets brand-level scores rather than model-level scores from J.D. Power. Brand-level scores are of limited use for a car buyer, and can actually misinform as much as they inform. After all, people don’t buy the entire line. They buy a particular model. And the scores of models can vary widely within a brand.
Much is made of which brands did better this year (Porsche, Lincoln), and which did worse (Jaguar). Well, as noted above, the brand averages can be heavily influenced by the introduction of a single new design or the absence of a single old design.
For these and other reasons a focus on model-level scores would be much more valid and useful.
Also worth noting: as in the past most makes are tightly bunched around the average, 155 problems per 100 cars this year. Consumer Reports considers any score within 20 percent of the average in its own survey to be “about average.” Applying this metric to J.D. Power’s results, 21 of the 36 brands are “about average.”
J.D. Power notes that for Cadillac, Ford, Hyundai, Lincoln, and Mercury perceptions of reliability lag reality. No surprise, since (as I’ve found all too often) people often judge (and more often than not reject) data based on how these data fit their perceptions rather than judging their perceptions based on how they fit the data.
J.D. Power’s explicit solution: convince consumers of gains in reliability. The implicit solution: pay to include VDS results in your ads. But are perceptions based on the VDS any more likely to be correct? Or, as seen in the Porsche and Jaguar cases, are they just as often part of the problem?
Makes sense as to why their rankings are never close to the previous year. I mean how can 1 model year change so much in terms of reliability?
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...bility-survey/
I conduct a car reliability survey at TrueDelta.com. Since we promptly update our results four times a year, we can report on new models ahead of anyone else. Last year, we announced that the 2009 Jaguar XF was faring poorly. This provoked a blistering backlash from owners at a particular Jaguar forum. In the end, threads on reliability were deleted and future ones all but banned in the interest of preserving what remained of the UK auto industry.
The outraged owners argued that TrueDelta’s results could not be correct, since Jaguar had just been declared the most dependable make by J.D. Power. I pointed out that the VDS covers the third year of ownership, 2006 in that case, and that Jaguar had discontinued, redesigned, or replaced every model in its line save the XJ in the interim. So the results did not apply to the XF, or the current XK for that matter.
Well, J.D. Power has now released the 2010 Vehicle Dependability Survey (VDS), which covers 2007s in their third year of ownership, and, as predicted, the redesigned XK has, all by its lonesome, sunk Jaguar’s ranking from 1st to 23rd. And it’ll only get uglier once the XF is reflected in these stats in another two years.
#1 this year: Porsche. Many people will wonder how Porsche fared so well. One likely factor: Porsches are often weekend cars that aren’t driven much. J.D. Power might consider doing what TrueDelta does, and post average odometer readings. A larger factor: THERE WAS NO 2007 CAYENNE—Porsche skipped straight from 2006 to 2008. The Cayenne is likely more troublesome than the sports cars, and is certainly driven more. So don’t expect a top VDS score for Porsche next year, when the Cayenne is again part of the mix.
“Long term” for J.D. Power continues to mean “the third year of ownership.” It used to mean the fifth year, but manufacturers have little use for fifth-year data, and this survey primarily exists to serve manufacturers willing to pay large sums for detailed results.
Many car buyers, though, are much more interested in how cars fare after the 3/36 warranty ends. J.D. Power has no information for them, hoping that car buyers will accept third-year problem frequencies as a sufficient indicator of how a car will perform over the long haul. Unfortunately, in many cases it is not. TrueDelta’s data suggest that all too often cars take a turn for the worse either soon after the warranty ends or after 100,000 miles.
As usual, the public gets brand-level scores rather than model-level scores from J.D. Power. Brand-level scores are of limited use for a car buyer, and can actually misinform as much as they inform. After all, people don’t buy the entire line. They buy a particular model. And the scores of models can vary widely within a brand.
Much is made of which brands did better this year (Porsche, Lincoln), and which did worse (Jaguar). Well, as noted above, the brand averages can be heavily influenced by the introduction of a single new design or the absence of a single old design.
For these and other reasons a focus on model-level scores would be much more valid and useful.
Also worth noting: as in the past most makes are tightly bunched around the average, 155 problems per 100 cars this year. Consumer Reports considers any score within 20 percent of the average in its own survey to be “about average.” Applying this metric to J.D. Power’s results, 21 of the 36 brands are “about average.”
J.D. Power notes that for Cadillac, Ford, Hyundai, Lincoln, and Mercury perceptions of reliability lag reality. No surprise, since (as I’ve found all too often) people often judge (and more often than not reject) data based on how these data fit their perceptions rather than judging their perceptions based on how they fit the data.
J.D. Power’s explicit solution: convince consumers of gains in reliability. The implicit solution: pay to include VDS results in your ads. But are perceptions based on the VDS any more likely to be correct? Or, as seen in the Porsche and Jaguar cases, are they just as often part of the problem?
Makes sense as to why their rankings are never close to the previous year. I mean how can 1 model year change so much in terms of reliability?
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...bility-survey/
#2
"This is why i use Consumer Reports instead.. "
o'rly?
2010 Consumer Reports Survey Analysis: Part One: Insufficient Data
Personally if i wanted to know the worst in terms of car reliability, i would visit car forums. You know damn well those are the places where people bitch the most but at the same time know if they are happy with their purchase.
o'rly?
2010 Consumer Reports Survey Analysis: Part One: Insufficient Data
Last week Jack Baruth reviewed the press release that attended Consumer Reports’ latest auto reliability survey results. But don’t run out and buy a Porsche for the sake of reliability just yet. And it might even be safe to buy a Chrysler.
Jack was surprised that Porsche ranked second among makes. On top of this, the Boxster was reported to be the most reliable car. What CR didn’t include in the press release about its coverage of Porsche models:
Data limitations don’t end with Porsche. CR also did not receive enough responses for…
Chrysler allegedly falls in the latter camp, with the press release reporting that it “remains the lowest-ranked manufacturer.” Chrysler has responded that, based on warranty claims,the quality of its products has greatly improved over the past two model years. Who’s correct? According to CR’s own results, quite possibly Chrysler. By CR’s count, Chrysler offers 28 models.
In two cases for which CR has enough data, the minivans and the Dodge Journey, the ratings improve from “much worse than average” for the 2009s to “about average” for the 2010s. This said, if other models have similarly improved, and if CR had had enough data on them, it still wouldn’t have been enough. The predicted reliability formula (which is confidential) appears to equally weight the model years, even though the most recent year is most likely to predict the current year. So a bad 2008 and 2009 can easily outweigh a much better 2010, and do for the minivans and the Journey. Even when CR does have enough data for all model years it often takes three years before an improvement is fully reflected in their predictions. When they don’t have enough data on the most recent years, it can take forever.
With such sparse data on the 2009s and 2010s, and some indication that the reliability of Chrysler’s products has improved while at least one Porsche has gone in the other direction, Consumer Reports probably should have reported that Chrysler’s and Porsche’s relative positions are currently unclear. Instead, they applied a formula that doesn’t take trends into account and that ignores substantial holes in their data. Porsche benefits. Chrysler does not.
Jack was surprised that Porsche ranked second among makes. On top of this, the Boxster was reported to be the most reliable car. What CR didn’t include in the press release about its coverage of Porsche models:
Number of 2009s with enough responses: 1
(a solid black blob for the 911)
Number of 2010s with enough responses: zero
Consumer Reports’ response to virtually any critique has long been the large size of their sample. Yet their coverage of recent Porsches is almost nonexistent. CR’s predictions are based on however many of the three most recent model years they have sufficient data for. The prediction for the 2011 Boxster is entirely based on the 2008, because that’s the only year they have enough data for. Yet the 2009 included significant revisions. They have no reliability ratings for the Panamera or the all-new Cayenne. So they have little basis for ranking the entire Porsche’s 2011 line. Even so, they rank Porsche second from the top.(a solid black blob for the 911)
Number of 2010s with enough responses: zero
Data limitations don’t end with Porsche. CR also did not receive enough responses for…
- Most 2009 and 2010 Audis. For the A8 they can rate only the 2004. For the S4, only the 2005.
- Many 2009 and 2010 BMWs, including the 135i and 535i singled out as unreliable in the press release. Consequently, BMW’s brand score is heavily based on the 2008 model year.
- Most 2010 Cadillacs.
- Six 2010 Chevrolets.
- Many 2010 Hyundais, Kias, and Mazdas.
- Any 2009 or 2010 Land Rover, including the new LR4.
- Five of the last eight model years of the Merecedes S-Class.
- The 2009 or the 2010 Mercedes GL-Class. Based on the 2008 alone they predict that the 2011 will be the least reliable SUV.
- Any 2010 Mitsubishi. And among the 2008s and 2009s, they can rate only the Outlander.
- Any 2009 or 2010 Saab.
- The 2010 Scion tC and xD—even with Toyota products their coverage isn’t complete.
- The 2010 Subaru WRX. They still single the WRX out as the one Subaru to avoid. From TrueDelta’s survey and forums I’ve learned that the engines in early 2009 WRXs have been prone to failure. But this problem was fixed during the 2009 model year, and should not affect the 2010s, much less the 2011s. Unfortunately, CR’s predictions don’t factor in known common problems that have been fixed.
- Any 2010 Suzuki, including the new Kizashi.
- Any 2010 Volvo aside from the XC60. And most 2009 Volvos. But the press release still mentions Volvo as one of the two consistently reliable European brands.
Chrysler allegedly falls in the latter camp, with the press release reporting that it “remains the lowest-ranked manufacturer.” Chrysler has responded that, based on warranty claims,the quality of its products has greatly improved over the past two model years. Who’s correct? According to CR’s own results, quite possibly Chrysler. By CR’s count, Chrysler offers 28 models.
Number of 2009s with enough responses: 14
Number of 2010s with enough responses: 7
The problem, once again: CR’s coverage is far less complete than their overall sample size (1.3 million) suggests it should be. Chrysler’s rating is heavily based on the 2008 model year. And their products were mostly unreliable that year.Number of 2010s with enough responses: 7
In two cases for which CR has enough data, the minivans and the Dodge Journey, the ratings improve from “much worse than average” for the 2009s to “about average” for the 2010s. This said, if other models have similarly improved, and if CR had had enough data on them, it still wouldn’t have been enough. The predicted reliability formula (which is confidential) appears to equally weight the model years, even though the most recent year is most likely to predict the current year. So a bad 2008 and 2009 can easily outweigh a much better 2010, and do for the minivans and the Journey. Even when CR does have enough data for all model years it often takes three years before an improvement is fully reflected in their predictions. When they don’t have enough data on the most recent years, it can take forever.
With such sparse data on the 2009s and 2010s, and some indication that the reliability of Chrysler’s products has improved while at least one Porsche has gone in the other direction, Consumer Reports probably should have reported that Chrysler’s and Porsche’s relative positions are currently unclear. Instead, they applied a formula that doesn’t take trends into account and that ignores substantial holes in their data. Porsche benefits. Chrysler does not.
#5
I usually discount JD Power as to reliability/dependability rankings because of its focus on the newest cars, and look to Consumer Reports for reliability rankings cars that are 3 or more years old.
IDK if anyone can do any valid reliability/dependability study any completely new-model car within the first two years of production, though.
IDK if anyone can do any valid reliability/dependability study any completely new-model car within the first two years of production, though.
#6
Very interesting note about how basically people hear what they want to hear. I see people doing this all the time, myself included. It's just some people take it to a whole nother level.
The results of JD Power's surverys always baffle me with the fluctuations... Now I know why
The results of JD Power's surverys always baffle me with the fluctuations... Now I know why
#7
What happens after the warranty is up is what matters to me. I don't care about initial quality w/in the 1st 90 days of ownership. MOst places give loaners and all dealers do warranty work on their own respective brands so that doesn't mean much to me. I want to know how a model performs after 5 years when it has been used.
I would hope that the consumer reports finding are true for older cars, but i would guess that they are flawed.
I would hope that the consumer reports finding are true for older cars, but i would guess that they are flawed.
Trending Topics
#10
Honestly, I just utilize JDP, Edmunds and CR as a general guide in assisting me with my auto purchase. But they are just three of many factors that I use.....the main factor being word of mouth from family, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances (as well as my own experience).
#11
Exactly. On forums you will find one off issues, minor but common issues and major issues from real drivers. I always wondered where CR gets there data, car dealerships? If so, that's not all that reliable.
#14
I tend to take user reviews with a grain of salt. For one, they're heavily biased. And then on the other hand, you get reviews like the one below. (from Edmunds.com)
Terrible reliability? Because the car needs a new battery? Sad thing is that there are probably multiple people who will read just that review and be turned away from buying a used TL.
Oh well.
2005 Acura TL 3.2 4dr Sedan (3.2L 6cyl 6M)
Review
Not Worth It! Too many issues...
The 2005 Acura TL is a sharp looking car but has way too many issues. Every time we don't use the car for 2-3 days it dies. Terrible reliability. I do not reccomend this car.
Review
Not Worth It! Too many issues...
The 2005 Acura TL is a sharp looking car but has way too many issues. Every time we don't use the car for 2-3 days it dies. Terrible reliability. I do not reccomend this car.
Oh well.
#15
I never really gave any weight to the JD Power data either- again, it's after 4-5 years where reliability really comes into play. I could care less what happens in the first 3 years although generally if a car is having issues in the 1st 3 years, they'll continue on into years 4, 5, and beyond.
#18
Never considered JD Power's data useful.
I mainly use True Delta and Consumer Reports together, plus the respective car forums.
Been sending my data to True Delta for years now.
I mainly use True Delta and Consumer Reports together, plus the respective car forums.
Been sending my data to True Delta for years now.
Last edited by AZuser; 01-05-2011 at 10:48 PM.
#19
Though I'm sure it varies widely by region. Here in the South it's not unpopular to purchase a car new and drive it until the wheels fall off. My piano teacher had a 2000 Civic that she just traded in on a Toyota Matrix, and the Civic had 303,000 miles when she traded.
I've also seen people seek out cars with around 100k miles, buy them for cash, and drive them for 3-4 years and repeat the process. Old cars can sell pretty fast around here, especially if they are in half-decent shape.
#21
#22
Usually depends on the quality of the car. A car that people like inside and out that gives them no issues they'll usually keep on average around 5 years. Cars that they hate will usually be around 3 years or so if they're able to get out of it considering negative equity and what not.
#23
I used CR back in 2006 for the first and only time when making my decision between a TSX and a Jetta 2.0T/GLI. The only factor holding me back was the reliability fear that you see on sites like CR and other Japanese Automotive forums. What amazed me was the general consumer comments at CR where actually the opposite of what CR's findings where. This in turn made my decision easier and I started to wonder how CR does its testing and more importantly its pool of test vehicles etc etc.
You can go to other similar reliabilty testing sites around the world and get different results.
http://www.samar.pl/__/__la/en/__ac/...ty-report.html
Here in NA brands like Audi, BMW etc are always slammed for reliability yet in Europe its the opposite.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...10/505879.html
Even in the European FN50 survey which is suppose to have a bigger pool for their results shows the top 3 as Honda, VW and BMW with two of the top three models being the 3 series and A4.
I agree with what others have said here and is why im a member at many other forums. The best way to determine reliability is by checking problem and fixes threads, word of mouth from mechanics, etc etc.
Im currently in the 6th year of ownership of my 2006 Jetta 2.0T/GLI and dont regret it for one minute over the TSX as its reliability has been no better or worse than any other Honda, Toyota, etc that I have owned. The reliability between most manufactuers over the last 10 years has improved so much that the difference between them is becomming very small and I have been hearing this also from many mechanics, etc
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
1
09-17-2015 09:01 PM