A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

JD Powers Survey



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 6th 05, 03:51 AM
Rob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Huw wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The just goes to show how closely cars are rated today for build
>>quality by their owners. The best has a rate 1.39 defects per
>>car and the worst 3.97 and the average of only 2.37. If one
>>subscribes to J D Powers service they would see the failures are
>>mostly minor in nature, such as squeaks and rattles
>>
>>Looks much different when presented as a list than if shown, as
>>it should be, as a percentage of failures. The best as just over
>>98% trouble free, the average just under 98% trouble free, and
>>the worst as just under 97% trouble free. That is what we see
>>in our business, as well.
>>
>>All manufactures are building good vehicles today that will
>>easily run to 200K, trouble free, if given the proper preventive
>>maintenance. The only real difference among them is style and
>>price. Your chance of getting a good one are basically 8 out of
>>9. The change of getting one not up to snuff is minor 1% to 2%
>>since they all have a failure rate of at least 1%, that is why
>>they all offer a warranty.
>>
>>Why some will spend 20% or 30% more to buy a comparable vehicle,
>>of a certain brand over another, just in the hope that the ONE
>>they get is not one of the 1% to 2%, always seemed like extremely
>>poor gambling odds to me
>>

>
>
> That's the way I see it too. I did not consider it much of a gamble to buy a
> new Range Rover and I have been rewarded by the most reliable vehicle over
> the first eight months that I have ever owned. In fact it is way ahead of my
> Toyota Land Cruiser over the same period which had a [difficult to sort]
> wheel alignment problem and needed a new fog lamp and drivers seatbelt in
> the same timeframe.
>
> Huw
>
>

200k are u nuts .... motors have such short pistons in them here in the
cold ares like canada the motor suffer from piston slap (slight knocking
noise untill motor warms up) as soon as 60000 miles.... my dads 200
intrepid with 2.7 mits engine broke a timing chain guide ! 110000
kilometers thank god the chain stayed on or it would have been more than
the 600 dollars of parts that i installed..... just worked on a 1991
buick today frame is about to fall apart from rust just in front of the
rear trailing arms to the rear suspension. dont tell me they build cars
better.... just imagine how long a mid 70's motor would have lasted if
they all had the advantages of modern fuel infection.
Ads
  #32  
Old July 6th 05, 08:34 PM
John Ockerbloom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, > wrote:
>GMs problem is primarily a PR problem and the survey backs that
>up. What they were doing ten to five years ago is hurting them
>today. They need only convince todays buyers, of what we in the
>industry already know, that the vehicle they and Ford are
>building TODAY are among the finest available on the market


Er, I've been hearing them say that for nearly 25 years now. "Really,
the cars we build *now* are much better!" You can only do that so long
before people stop listening. (As for me, I'll start paying attention
when the Consumer Reports long-term reliability survey figures for Ford
and GM consistently stay up with the best Japanese manufacturers. Those
manufacturers were still well ahead of them on that measure, at last check.)

>New vehicle buyers in the US replace their vehicle with another
>new vehicle in three to four years. The majority of those that
>roam the NG are USED vehicle buyer, not NEW vehicle buyer, their
>opinion of the used vehicle they bought does not mean a hill of
>beans to todays new vehicle buyers, in any event.


What are those frequent new car buyers going to do with the cars they
replace? Unless they want to collect them on their lawn or keep expanding
their garages, they're going to want to sell them or trade them in. And
what will they be able to get for them? That depends on how much those
used vehicle buyers are willing to pay. Which means that new-car buyers
*should* care about how fast their cars depreciate (which is quite fast
for many GM and Ford models), if they care about keeping their overall
auto expenses down.

You might as well spend a little more up front for a better-built, more
reliable car that isn't going to lose its value as fast, whether you're
planning to resell it in a few years or keep it until the wheels fall off.

(Or, if you think that GM and Ford have had an undeservedly bad rep, then
the smart move to save money is buy one of their cars at the 3-4 year mark
for cheap. If they really are reliable, you should then be able to
keep them for many more years, and save big bucks. But as for us,
we've been happy with our now-16-year-old Toyota, and will probably get
something fairly similar when it's time to replace it.)

John Mark Ockerbloom
--
Due to excessive spam, the email address shown in this post is invalid.
If you need to reach me by email, see http://pobox.upenn.edu/~ockerblo/
for my current contact information.
  #33  
Old July 6th 05, 09:23 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There will always be those that can not afford a new car, that
will be there to buy up all of the used cars.


mike hunt



John Ockerbloom wrote:
>
> In article >, > wrote:
> >GMs problem is primarily a PR problem and the survey backs that
> >up. What they were doing ten to five years ago is hurting them
> >today. They need only convince todays buyers, of what we in the
> >industry already know, that the vehicle they and Ford are
> >building TODAY are among the finest available on the market

>
> Er, I've been hearing them say that for nearly 25 years now. "Really,
> the cars we build *now* are much better!" You can only do that so long
> before people stop listening. (As for me, I'll start paying attention
> when the Consumer Reports long-term reliability survey figures for Ford
> and GM consistently stay up with the best Japanese manufacturers. Those
> manufacturers were still well ahead of them on that measure, at last check.)
>
> >New vehicle buyers in the US replace their vehicle with another
> >new vehicle in three to four years. The majority of those that
> >roam the NG are USED vehicle buyer, not NEW vehicle buyer, their
> >opinion of the used vehicle they bought does not mean a hill of
> >beans to todays new vehicle buyers, in any event.

>
> What are those frequent new car buyers going to do with the cars they
> replace? Unless they want to collect them on their lawn or keep expanding
> their garages, they're going to want to sell them or trade them in. And
> what will they be able to get for them? That depends on how much those
> used vehicle buyers are willing to pay. Which means that new-car buyers
> *should* care about how fast their cars depreciate (which is quite fast
> for many GM and Ford models), if they care about keeping their overall
> auto expenses down.
>
> You might as well spend a little more up front for a better-built, more
> reliable car that isn't going to lose its value as fast, whether you're
> planning to resell it in a few years or keep it until the wheels fall off.
>
> (Or, if you think that GM and Ford have had an undeservedly bad rep, then
> the smart move to save money is buy one of their cars at the 3-4 year mark
> for cheap. If they really are reliable, you should then be able to
> keep them for many more years, and save big bucks. But as for us,
> we've been happy with our now-16-year-old Toyota, and will probably get
> something fairly similar when it's time to replace it.)
>
> John Mark Ockerbloom
> --
> Due to excessive spam, the email address shown in this post is invalid.
> If you need to reach me by email, see http://pobox.upenn.edu/~ockerblo/
> for my current contact information.

  #34  
Old July 6th 05, 10:38 PM
razz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My buddy is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership, they're not as reliable as
people think they are. They have just as many problems as other
manufacturers. I don't subscribe to that mentality that most people believe
jap scrap is more reliable than other cars. My wife's 97 ford contour has
had not one lick of problem up until this weekend, I changed the water pump
at 90,000k's. We have had it since 98. I just worked on a supra not more
than two months ago which needed a new cam, worn lobes, warped head, so
don't tell me that they're more reliable. Same goes for our Honda accord,
replaced the cam at 130,000k's, again worn lobes. I quess they use cheap
metal. I'm currrently trying a Hyundai sonota, and will never buy one of
those again, nice looking car, but never again. All of these cars were a one
owner brand new off the lot vehicles. I'm currently looking for a new car,
and may go back to a European car, particular a German made car.

> wrote in message
...
> There will always be those that can not afford a new car, that
> will be there to buy up all of the used cars.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> John Ockerbloom wrote:
> >
> > In article >, >

wrote:
> > >GMs problem is primarily a PR problem and the survey backs that
> > >up. What they were doing ten to five years ago is hurting them
> > >today. They need only convince todays buyers, of what we in the
> > >industry already know, that the vehicle they and Ford are
> > >building TODAY are among the finest available on the market

> >
> > Er, I've been hearing them say that for nearly 25 years now. "Really,
> > the cars we build *now* are much better!" You can only do that so long
> > before people stop listening. (As for me, I'll start paying attention
> > when the Consumer Reports long-term reliability survey figures for Ford
> > and GM consistently stay up with the best Japanese manufacturers. Those
> > manufacturers were still well ahead of them on that measure, at last

check.)
> >
> > >New vehicle buyers in the US replace their vehicle with another
> > >new vehicle in three to four years. The majority of those that
> > >roam the NG are USED vehicle buyer, not NEW vehicle buyer, their
> > >opinion of the used vehicle they bought does not mean a hill of
> > >beans to todays new vehicle buyers, in any event.

> >
> > What are those frequent new car buyers going to do with the cars they
> > replace? Unless they want to collect them on their lawn or keep

expanding
> > their garages, they're going to want to sell them or trade them in. And
> > what will they be able to get for them? That depends on how much those
> > used vehicle buyers are willing to pay. Which means that new-car buyers
> > *should* care about how fast their cars depreciate (which is quite fast
> > for many GM and Ford models), if they care about keeping their overall
> > auto expenses down.
> >
> > You might as well spend a little more up front for a better-built, more
> > reliable car that isn't going to lose its value as fast, whether you're
> > planning to resell it in a few years or keep it until the wheels fall

off.
> >
> > (Or, if you think that GM and Ford have had an undeservedly bad rep,

then
> > the smart move to save money is buy one of their cars at the 3-4 year

mark
> > for cheap. If they really are reliable, you should then be able to
> > keep them for many more years, and save big bucks. But as for us,
> > we've been happy with our now-16-year-old Toyota, and will probably get
> > something fairly similar when it's time to replace it.)
> >
> > John Mark Ockerbloom
> > --
> > Due to excessive spam, the email address shown in this post is invalid.
> > If you need to reach me by email, see http://pobox.upenn.edu/~ockerblo/
> > for my current contact information.



  #35  
Old July 7th 05, 01:44 AM
S.S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

razz wrote:

> My buddy is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership, they're not as reliable as
> people think they are. They have just as many problems as other
> manufacturers.


No car is going to be 100% problem free, but Toyotas and Hondas typically
experience less non-routine problems than North American brands, especially
if regular maintenance is kept up. But even with regular maintenance, North
American brand cars tend to experience more non-routine problems, especially
when they are at least 5 years old and/or the mileage gets up there. And
this JD Power survey focused on (I think) 3-year old cars.

My '93 Accord has 223,000km (138,000 miles) and has been extremely reliable.
My father and brother both have Corollas ('04 and '05) with about 30,000km
(19,000 miles) each so far, and as expected, both have been reliable so far.
But we have taken good care of our cars and kept up the regular maintenance.


> I don't subscribe to that mentality that most people believe
> jap scrap is more reliable than other cars.


Not all Japanese brands are reliable (especially Mazda, for example). But
Toyota and Honda are typically more reliable than most others.


> My wife's 97 ford contour has
> had not one lick of problem up until this weekend, I changed the water pump
> at 90,000k's. We have had it since 98.


You've been lucky. I know a lot of Contour/Mystique owners who had lots of
problems with them, including a few that had fires from under the hood.


> I just worked on a supra not more
> than two months ago which needed a new cam, worn lobes, warped head, so
> don't tell me that they're more reliable.


Since it's a Supra, perhaps it was not well taken care of. The only common
problem I am aware of (depending on the year) is the head gasket.


> Same goes for our Honda accord,
> replaced the cam at 130,000k's, again worn lobes. I quess they use cheap
> metal.


Since you appear to be in Canada (like me), I assume you are talking
kilometers here? Anyway, that is rare for an Accord. But again, is it
possible that it hasn't been well taken care of?


> I'm currrently trying a Hyundai sonota, and will never buy one of
> those again, nice looking car, but never again. All of these cars were a one
> owner brand new off the lot vehicles. I'm currently looking for a new car,
> and may go back to a European car, particular a German made car.


German cars are actually no more reliable than the others. Volkwagens are
just plain junk, and apparently, Mercedes-Benz' quality has suffered since
the DaimlerChrysler merger.
  #36  
Old July 7th 05, 03:10 AM
razz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"S.S." > wrote in message
...
> razz wrote:
>
> > My buddy is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership, they're not as reliable

as
> > people think they are. They have just as many problems as other
> > manufacturers.

>
> No car is going to be 100% problem free, but Toyotas and Hondas typically
> experience less non-routine problems than North American brands,

especially
> if regular maintenance is kept up. But even with regular maintenance,

North
> American brand cars tend to experience more non-routine problems,

especially
> when they are at least 5 years old and/or the mileage gets up there. And
> this JD Power survey focused on (I think) 3-year old cars.
>
> My '93 Accord has 223,000km (138,000 miles) and has been extremely

reliable.
> My father and brother both have Corollas ('04 and '05) with about 30,000km
> (19,000 miles) each so far, and as expected, both have been reliable so

far.
> But we have taken good care of our cars and kept up the regular

maintenance.
>
>
> > I don't subscribe to that mentality that most people believe
> > jap scrap is more reliable than other cars.

>
> Not all Japanese brands are reliable (especially Mazda, for example). But
> Toyota and Honda are typically more reliable than most others.
>
>
> > My wife's 97 ford contour has
> > had not one lick of problem up until this weekend, I changed the water

pump
> > at 90,000k's. We have had it since 98.

>
> You've been lucky. I know a lot of Contour/Mystique owners who had lots

of
> problems with them, including a few that had fires from under the hood.
>
>
> > I just worked on a supra not more
> > than two months ago which needed a new cam, worn lobes, warped head, so
> > don't tell me that they're more reliable.

>
> Since it's a Supra, perhaps it was not well taken care of. The only

common
> problem I am aware of (depending on the year) is the head gasket.
>
>
> > Same goes for our Honda accord,
> > replaced the cam at 130,000k's, again worn lobes. I quess they use cheap
> > metal.



> Since you appear to be in Canada (like me), I assume you are talking
> kilometers here? Anyway, that is rare for an Accord. But again, is it
> possible that it hasn't been well taken care of?

We had it since brand new, bought in 86, got rid of that scrap pile in 91
with a 130 k's on the clock. started to rust out pretty bad to. All routine
maintenance done by me ( worked for honda dealership at the time ). The shop
was well stocked with vehicles in for repairs and tsb's all the time. Same
as the Toyo shop across the lot from them at that time, no different from a
ford or gm or chrysler shop. Had just as many cars going through the doors
as any one else. And to this day, at the auto mall here in the city i see
the shops full of cars, Toyo's, Honda's, Gm's Ford's, and so on. I see no
difference in reliability or the number of occurances in these cars than
from any others.
> > I'm currrently trying a Hyundai sonota, and will never buy one of
> > those again, nice looking car, but never again. All of these cars were a

one
> > owner brand new off the lot vehicles. I'm currently looking for a new

car,
> > and may go back to a European car, particular a German made car.

>
> German cars are actually no more reliable than the others. Volkwagens are
> just plain junk, and apparently, Mercedes-Benz' quality has suffered since
> the DaimlerChrysler merger.

That may be true, but I've had no problems when I owned a volks or Mercedes.
But they were not brand new and were well into the hundreds of thousand of
miles on the clocks, they were a 60,61, 65. My 190 my dad gave me as a grad
present, had over 470,000 miles on the odometer, but I took the engine apart
for restoration. I figured I refresh it, did not need it, but I wanted to
bring this thing to brand new condition from a ground up restore. The hoses
and lines needed replacing to get it like new again. To bad it burnt to the
ground in a garage fire, it was a beauty, with ivory steering wheel and
cherry wood dash, and wasn't insured. But it was a slug, barely moved,
underpowered, but what a gorgeous looking car. Had no problems with it
whatsoever.


  #37  
Old July 7th 05, 03:26 AM
Bill 2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"S.S." > wrote in message
...


> German cars are actually no more reliable than the others. Volkwagens are
> just plain junk, and apparently, Mercedes-Benz' quality has suffered since
> the DaimlerChrysler merger.


No, MB has been junk for quite a while, no merger needed. German cars are
not only junk, but ridiculously expensive to repair.

What gets me is VW puts out ****, yet has a retardedly high resale value.


  #38  
Old July 7th 05, 03:35 AM
Bill 2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rob" > wrote in message
news:dHHye.164826$El.146122@pd7tw1no...
> Huw wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>The just goes to show how closely cars are rated today for build
>>>quality by their owners. The best has a rate 1.39 defects per
>>>car and the worst 3.97 and the average of only 2.37. If one
>>>subscribes to J D Powers service they would see the failures are
>>>mostly minor in nature, such as squeaks and rattles
>>>
>>>Looks much different when presented as a list than if shown, as
>>>it should be, as a percentage of failures. The best as just over
>>>98% trouble free, the average just under 98% trouble free, and
>>>the worst as just under 97% trouble free. That is what we see
>>>in our business, as well.
>>>
>>>All manufactures are building good vehicles today that will
>>>easily run to 200K, trouble free, if given the proper preventive
>>>maintenance. The only real difference among them is style and
>>>price. Your chance of getting a good one are basically 8 out of
>>>9. The change of getting one not up to snuff is minor 1% to 2%
>>>since they all have a failure rate of at least 1%, that is why
>>>they all offer a warranty.
>>>
>>>Why some will spend 20% or 30% more to buy a comparable vehicle,
>>>of a certain brand over another, just in the hope that the ONE
>>>they get is not one of the 1% to 2%, always seemed like extremely
>>>poor gambling odds to me
>>>

>>
>>
>> That's the way I see it too. I did not consider it much of a gamble to
>> buy a new Range Rover and I have been rewarded by the most reliable
>> vehicle over the first eight months that I have ever owned. In fact it is
>> way ahead of my Toyota Land Cruiser over the same period which had a
>> [difficult to sort] wheel alignment problem and needed a new fog lamp and
>> drivers seatbelt in the same timeframe.
>>
>> Huw

> 200k are u nuts .... motors have such short pistons in them here in the
> cold ares like canada the motor suffer from piston slap (slight knocking
> noise untill motor warms up) as soon as 60000 miles....


We also use block heaters up here in Canada on cold nights. I frequently
hear 10+ year old Plymouth Acclaims with 300 000km+ tapping away from piston
slap (when warm) no problem. Piston slap is usually more of an annoyance
than anything major.

> my dads 200 intrepid with 2.7 mits engine broke a timing chain guide !
> 110000 kilometers thank god the chain stayed on or it would have been more
> than the 600 dollars of parts that i installed..... just worked on a 1991
> buick today frame is about to fall apart from rust just in front of the
> rear trailing arms to the rear suspension.


14 year old car.

> dont tell me they build cars better.... just imagine how long a mid 70's
> motor would have lasted if they all had the advantages of modern fuel
> infection.


And how the body wouldn't.


  #39  
Old July 7th 05, 03:59 AM
S.S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

razz wrote:

> We had it since brand new, bought in 86, got rid of that scrap pile in 91
> with a 130 k's on the clock. started to rust out pretty bad to. All routine
> maintenance done by me ( worked for honda dealership at the time ). The shop
> was well stocked with vehicles in for repairs and tsb's all the time. Same
> as the Toyo shop across the lot from them at that time, no different from a
> ford or gm or chrysler shop. Had just as many cars going through the doors
> as any one else. And to this day, at the auto mall here in the city i see
> the shops full of cars, Toyo's, Honda's, Gm's Ford's, and so on. I see no
> difference in reliability or the number of occurances in these cars than
> from any others.


Just curious, how do you know that ALL of those Hondas and Toyotas you saw
in the shops were there for something other than regular maintenance (not
counting TSB's and recalls)?

Perhaps your Accord was a rare lemon? I still see a handful of late 80s
Accords running today. A friend of mine put close to 500,000km on an '86
Accord with very few non-routine problems. He ditched it in 2001 when the
rust caught up with it, but the engine (carbureted) and auto tranny were
still all original and good.

Perhaps you have seen no difference in reliability, but I have.
  #40  
Old July 7th 05, 05:30 AM
razz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Because I worked on them!
"S.S." > wrote in message
...
> razz wrote:
>
> > We had it since brand new, bought in 86, got rid of that scrap pile in

91
> > with a 130 k's on the clock. started to rust out pretty bad to. All

routine
> > maintenance done by me ( worked for honda dealership at the time ). The

shop
> > was well stocked with vehicles in for repairs and tsb's all the time.

Same
> > as the Toyo shop across the lot from them at that time, no different

from a
> > ford or gm or chrysler shop. Had just as many cars going through the

doors
> > as any one else. And to this day, at the auto mall here in the city i

see
> > the shops full of cars, Toyo's, Honda's, Gm's Ford's, and so on. I see

no
> > difference in reliability or the number of occurances in these cars

than
> > from any others.

>
> Just curious, how do you know that ALL of those Hondas and Toyotas you saw
> in the shops were there for something other than regular maintenance (not
> counting TSB's and recalls)?
>
> Perhaps your Accord was a rare lemon? I still see a handful of late 80s
> Accords running today. A friend of mine put close to 500,000km on an '86
> Accord with very few non-routine problems. He ditched it in 2001 when the
> rust caught up with it, but the engine (carbureted) and auto tranny were
> still all original and good.
>
> Perhaps you have seen no difference in reliability, but I have.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Free Starbucks Giftcard for a 30 second web survey [email protected] Driving 0 March 22nd 05 12:28 AM
Attn Nissan owners - Free 20GB iPod for completing short survey Charles Shillingburg General 0 January 5th 05 05:54 PM
Auto Repair Survey Phileas Phil General 0 March 29th 04 01:00 AM
Auto Survey Phileas Phil 4x4 0 March 29th 04 12:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.