Toyota top in 2008 intial quality (non luxury)

2008 Nameplate IQS Ranking
Problems Per 100 Vehicles
J.D. Power and Associates
2008 Initial Quality StudySM (IQS)

Porsche 87
Infiniti 98
Lexus 99
Mercedes-Benz 104
Toyota 104
Mercury 109
Honda 110
Ford 112
Jaguar 112
Audi 113
Cadillac 113
Chevrolet 113
Hyundai 114
Pontiac 114
Lincoln 115
Buick 118
Industry Average 118
Acura 119
Kia 119
Nissan 124
Volvo 124
BMW 126
GMC 127
Mazda 127
Volkswagen 128
HUMMER 132
Subaru 133
Scion 138
Dodge 141
Chrysler 142
Mitsubishi 149
Saab 149
Suzuki 152
Saturn 157
Land Rover 161
MINI 163
Jeep 167


source: JD Power

Uh Oh, sorry domestics, looks like Toyota can still claim to be the quality benchmark for cars.

Fan

Forget about Toyota and GM, I'm surprised MB is back up there, and Infiniti actually beating Lexus. I think that's something good for Infiniti because Nissan is not known for quality.

Forget about Toyota and GM, I'm surprised MB is back up there, and Infiniti actually beating Lexus. I think that's something good for Infiniti because Nissan is not known for quality.


I'm the same. MB way up there?? I wouldn't think they improved their reliability that fast or quality problems of the past. Maybe they did. Although know this is initial, so after a day or so the MB is back in the shop.:lol::disappoin

Acura is surprisingly low, is it because the buyers feel ripped off? Kia is a big surprise to me...I haven't found much to suggest they're using quality materials or even quality parts. Nissan's biggest problem is interior materials, they're poor in comparison to the other Japanese. Mitsubishi...I actually haven't found any problems with them, I thought they were above average. Chrysler however deserves its low spot. Very bad materials, really cheaply designed interior Sebring in particular gives me back pain, in the case of the Sebring/Avenger whole trim falls apart and as for reliability some of our 2008 Caravans have A/C units that failed shortly.

I know that this is a Toyota site, and Toyota and Lexus did well, as usual, but I'm looking at Mercedes-Benz being fourth after the kicking they've received recently is something else.

And Ford has continued to do better in quality at third mass market brand with Mercury above Honda.

Quick question: Another thing that surprised me is that Scion is still near the bottom. I don't get that.

Initial quality is a metric I never liked. It is often not an indicator of long term reliability.

Quality and reliability is engineered and built in from the beginning. Having a low defect rate for a new car is nice, but that doesn't mean it will hold up long term. A better stat is how many defects are fixed after the car has left the assembly line. This is a good indicator of the quality of assembly and design. But these stats are internal for the most part.

I do remember reading that some auto makers at times spent more hours fixing the car after it was made then the actual assembly time.

Acura is surprisingly low, is it because the buyers feel ripped off? Kia is a big surprise to me...I haven't found much to suggest they're using quality materials or even quality parts. Nissan's biggest problem is interior materials, they're poor in comparison to the other Japanese. Mitsubishi...I actually haven't found any problems with them, I thought they were above average. Chrysler however deserves its low spot. Very bad materials, really cheaply designed interior Sebring in particular gives me back pain, in the case of the Sebring/Avenger whole trim falls apart and as for reliability some of our 2008 Caravans have A/C units that failed shortly.

I don't know if initial quality is the quality of materials, or just the amount of problems it has. From the title, I think its the problems it has in the first set period of ownership. I'm frankly not surprised by Acura. Hit up Acurazine and you will see the headaches that are coming up in the TL(interior trim) and CSX Type S(transmission).

I know that this is a Toyota site, and Toyota and Lexus did well, as usual, but I'm looking at Mercedes-Benz being fourth after the kicking they've received recently is something else.

And Ford has continued to do better in quality at third mass market brand with Mercury above Honda.

Quick question: Another thing that surprised me is that Scion is still near the bottom. I don't get that.

I think the Mercury survey is kind of skewed because (maybe I'm biased) most Mercury buyers are older people, and they don't seem to be as picky about little problems. If its some one like my grandma, a squeak that I would hear, she probably won't.
I do also wonder about Scion... Maybe people find it lacking in power, and call it a problem lol.

Initial quality is a metric I never liked. It is often not an indicator of long term reliability.

Quality and reliability is engineered and built in from the beginning. Having a low defect rate for a new car is nice, but that doesn't mean it will hold up long term. A better stat is how many defects are fixed after the car has left the assembly line. This is a good indicator of the quality of assembly and design. But these stats are internal for the most part.

I do remember reading that some auto makers at times spent more hours fixing the car after it was made then the actual assembly time.

Its true, I don't put too much in initial quality too, but if the car is already giving problems in the first 3 months of ownership, what about the next 3 years? I think its a piece to think about though not completely dominating in ur look for a new car.

Its true, I don't put too much in initial quality too, but if the car is already giving problems in the first 3 months of ownership, what about the next 3 years?
Good point.

The thing is, I remember seeing some of the most unreliable cars long term showing up near the top in the initial quality surveys.

This list is wrong, Ford said their qaulity was equal to Toyota, JD powers must be in Toyota's pocket because there is no way the Ford sponsered survey is wrong.

But seriously what is Mercedes doing that high on the list? There cars have horrible reliability. I would buy a Ford or GM before a MB well that is if I were looking for quality, but if I just wanted to floss I'd probably get one.

But seriously what is Mercedes doing that high on the list? There cars have horrible reliability. I would buy a Ford or GM before a MB well that is if I were looking for quality, but if I just wanted to floss I'd probably get one.

I'll repeat what others have said....people confuse quality with reliability. While both have an effect on the ownership experience, the survey above deals strictly with problems that occur right from the factory. ALthough a Mercedes looks impecable in the showroom (quality) it has a higher amount of problems down the road (reliability).

Initial quality is a metric I never liked. It is often not an indicator of long term reliability.

Quality and reliability is engineered and built in from the beginning. Having a low defect rate for a new car is nice, but that doesn't mean it will hold up long term. A better stat is how many defects are fixed after the car has left the assembly line. This is a good indicator of the quality of assembly and design. But these stats are internal for the most part.

I do remember reading that some auto makers at times spent more hours fixing the car after it was made then the actual assembly time.



YES ................. YES ................. and YES YES........... :thumbup:

Most, like Mercedes, will never survive a 5 year survey..... :lol:


I have always empahsized that when it comes to long term reliability.. there are only a few........... ;) ONE being the best.... ;) :D I dare not mention here as I don't wish to be crucified. My blood will be on my own hands.. :lol:

Acura is surprisingly low, is it because the buyers feel ripped off?

Acura is going through and interesting stage. It has a identity crisis. It really hasn't grown as a company like Lexus. As far as being more competitive. They just stayed where they are at but improve upon it, which isn't bad but...its getting harder to justify a premium of a Acura over a Honduh. Generally speaking. I know it goes after a different buyer but I think they are limiting themselves. Sales are down, at least last I heard, maybe they're better but it shows people don't want just a dressed up Honduh. Acura needs to be more distinct from its parent company.Which IMO is crucial to its survival. Most luxury buyers don't have Acura on their list. Not good for Honduh. Also since Acura is generally more affordable luxury they got stuck in that stima, so if they want to move up market they have to make baby steps. Obviously still have an entry car. Not against 4-bangers, but for a luxury brand I think is a no-no. Yes they can be capable and gas is so-so (Depending on application) but it doesn't bode well with luxury shoppers overall. But I think overall it brings down the image the brand compared to other luxury makes, its goes back to not as competitive as their other luxury counterparts. Even the American luxury makes don't have a 4-banger.

I know it sounds like I hate Acura. I don't. I'm just pointing out some stuff.;)


I do also wonder about Scion... Maybe people find it lacking in power, and call it a problem lol.
.

Well they bitched about Scion not having enough power for the first gens at least the xB and xA. Now they do but now they bitch about the gas mileage. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also going along with that they wanted the cars bigger so there goes the gas mileage. Seriously pisses me off, can never win with some people. I do agree, I think Scion is dangerously becoming too much like the parent. It needs new fresh products. I would like cool sub to compact funky cars that have decent power yet deliver acceptable mpg. If Toyota is unwilling to go sporty they should make their Scions sporty, from factory (overall). Like Mazda's are generally sporty. I know people will mod them anyway but seriously spice it up. Be more competitive. End of rant:lol::lol:



ONE being the best.... ;) :D I dare not mention here as I don't wish to be crucified. My blood will be on my own hands.. :lol:


It better not be Toyota!! They suck:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:;):thumbup:

:clap: Props to Toyota and Lexus. That's really nice to see. :thumbup:

To comment on the scion comment. I owned the first generation xb and currently own the second generation. I love them both, for different reasons. Maybe I'm just not picky. I will say though, my new one matches the first one in fuel economy. I dont understand people... *sigh*

I had some questions also when I first looked over this list, some shared with the other readers:

1. Why is Mercury ahead of Ford, and Lincoln further down the list when the 3 marques share many of their body styles and are assembled on the same lines? Should they not have the same ranking? Obviously, this study is not truly objective, and so must be subjective.

2. Why is Acura so far down the list, yet Honda is further up the list? Is it because Acura owners are expecting a lot, but are not being satisfied?

3. Why is Scion so far down the list? Similarly to Acura, are Scion owners expecting a lot but are not being satisfied?

4. Hyundai is quite far up the list. Are Hyundai owners expecting relatively less, and so are more easily satisfied?

I tried to search for the question(s) asked in this study. While I could not find the question(s), I did find the criteria against which the vehicles are judged. I found that of the 8 criteria, only 5 are criteria that my fellow readers/posters would consider to be "quality-related", in other words, related to mechanical breakdown.

Overall Quality: "...complete breakdown or malfunction, or where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand"

Overall Quality - Mechanical: "...complete breakdown or malfunction of any component, feature, or item (i.e., components that stop working or trim pieces that break or come loose)"

Powertrain Quality - Mechanical: "...problems with the engine or transmission as well as problems that affect the driving experience (i.e., vehicle/brakes pull, abnormal noises or vibrations) only"

Body & Interior Quality - Mechanical: "...problems with wind noise, water leaks, poor interior fit/finish, paint imperfection, and squeaks/rattles"

Features & Accessories Quality - Mechanical: "...problems with the seats, windshield wipers, navigation system, rear-seat entertainment system, heater, air conditioner, stereo system, sunroof and trip computer"

Overall Quality - Design: "...problems where controls or features may work as designed, but are difficult to use or understand (i.e., overly complicated controls/features that are difficult to operate due to poor location)"

Powertrain Quality - Design: "...problems with the engine or transmission as well as problems that affect the driving experience (i.e., ride smoothness, responsiveness of the steering system and brakes, and handling/stability)". So, a quiet engine on a sporty car (in which the driver may want to hear the engine) could be taken as low quality?

Body & Interior Quality - Design: "...problems with the front-/rear-end styling, the appearance of the interior and exterior, and the sound of the doors when closing". So, a truly subjective criteria, aesthetic design (for example, some may like the style of Toyotas while others may not), is a measurement of quality. Could this be Acura's problem?

Features & Accessories Quality - Design: "...problems with the seats, stereo/navigation system, heater, air conditioner, and sunroof". If so, I would rate current Hondas, with their centre stacks full of similar-looking and confusing buttons, as low quality.

While only 5 of the 8 are related to mechanical breakdown or "reliability" as most would define it, "quality" is more than reliability, and in quality assurance circles, is defined as how well the product meets the users' expectations. So, this is a subjective study masquerading as an objective study. It all has to do with expectations: if your expectations of your car are few or less stringent, the more likely that you will be more easily satisfied. Similarly, if a previously low-ranked car has made improvements (Infiniti and MB, for instance), the more likely the owner will be satisfied; and vice-versa, if a previously high-ranked car now has some problems (even if they are simply design problems, perhaps evidenced by some of styling changes on current Acuras), the more likely the owner will NOT be satisfied.

Two study conclusions in particular came to my attention:

"Excessive wind noise continues to be the most frequently cited problem among new car buyers, followed by excessive fuel consumption—not surprising considering the steady rise in gasoline prices that is making consumers more critical of their vehicle’s fuel economy, and prompting many to switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles."

So, otherwise quiet cars (so that wind noise is more likely to be a problem) are low quality? And (relatively) high fuel consumption cars are now low quality?

"The integration of new technology continues to be a challenge for manufacturers. Of the eight problem categories the study tracks, only the Audio/Entertainment/Navigation category suffers a quality decline. Most of this decline in quality is due to design-related issues such as the controls being difficult to operate or understand."

This was a problem that Mercedes-Benz suffered from a few years ago, and something they were working seriously to correct. So, with MB now further up the list, does that mean that its technology-integration problems are largely solved?

Source: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2008-Initial-Quality-Study-Results

I'm the same. MB way up there?? I wouldn't think they improved their reliability that fast or quality problems of the past. Maybe they did. Although know this is initial, so after a day or so the MB is back in the shop.:lol::disappoin

Good one! :lol::lol: Think so too

Acura is surprisingly low, is it because the buyers feel ripped off? Kia is a big surprise to me...I haven't found much to suggest they're using quality materials or even quality parts. Nissan's biggest problem is interior materials, they're poor in comparison to the other Japanese. Mitsubishi...I actually haven't found any problems with them, I thought they were above average. Chrysler however deserves its low spot. Very bad materials, really cheaply designed interior Sebring in particular gives me back pain, in the case of the Sebring/Avenger whole trim falls apart and as for reliability some of our 2008 Caravans have A/C units that failed shortly.

Me neither, well at least with the new lancer. :thumbup:

Me neither, well at least with the new lancer. :thumbup:
I really want to drive a new Lancer because of the way it looks, sadly my workplace doesn't get any. We do however have Outlanders and Endeavors and all our customer feedback on those is positive.

^ I think the Outlander is a nice car, and the exterior is my cup of tea too. Better than the 1st Gen Highlander I'm driving right now at least.... But... I took a look at the car when I was checking out the new Lancer. It seems like the gaps on the rear seats where the hinges for folding is HUGE, its really ugly to look at.