I think this is a really good move. When my parents were looking to get a car they completely ignored any domestic cars because the warranties sucked. So they went and bought a Hyundai.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,528
- 908
- 126
My wife and I bought a 2006 IS250. It's a great car, fun to drive, handles well, excellent brakes and it gets 24/30mpg.
Good for GM
It goes a long way to say yeah we make good cars but then back it up puts the money where the mouth is. Its an important step in regaining consumer confidence, now just get rid of the legacy ovehead costs and they should do just fine.
It goes a long way to say yeah we make good cars but then back it up puts the money where the mouth is. Its an important step in regaining consumer confidence, now just get rid of the legacy ovehead costs and they should do just fine.
I don't need to "miss" anything... simple fact, GM makes on the whole, poorly built cars. I'm sorry if you own one. 
Originally posted by: Gulzakar
I don't need to "miss" anything... simple fact, GM makes on the whole, poorly built cars. I'm sorry if you own one.
bull.
VWaG makes poorly built cars.
GM makes average, to good cars.
*these statements are based upon reliability statistics only
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,476
- 3,974
- 126
And yet the JD Powers and Consumer Reports results are about exactly the same. You just sound silly after that. What is their bias? And what does a test on blenders have to do with a poll on car reliability?
Doh! I just relized OS pointed out your logic flaw in another post. Sorry for the repost.
Of the three consumer advocates they do trend some vehicles as best in class IE civic.
Others they vary on but the big difference is that the margins are so small nowadays, in 1980 the 90 day initial quality survey had 88 out of 100 with problems now its about 20 out of a 100 with the Jap 15-17 US 17-19 and Europe 20-22 and what constitues a problem is a lot smaller.
What people used to just accept now is called a 'serious problem'
Something CR never defines, so its subjective, in fact what earns you a black circle in CR may just be a 'feeling' of a reviewer.
The industry has trended to a large improvement since 2000 for all manufactureres.
Now its more a larger question of new vehicle introduction or new plant quality issues vs engineering differences and mature platforms. They all get screwed together about the same these days its much more about $ vs styling vs niceties than actual reliability
Others they vary on but the big difference is that the margins are so small nowadays, in 1980 the 90 day initial quality survey had 88 out of 100 with problems now its about 20 out of a 100 with the Jap 15-17 US 17-19 and Europe 20-22 and what constitues a problem is a lot smaller.
What people used to just accept now is called a 'serious problem'
Something CR never defines, so its subjective, in fact what earns you a black circle in CR may just be a 'feeling' of a reviewer.
The industry has trended to a large improvement since 2000 for all manufactureres.
Now its more a larger question of new vehicle introduction or new plant quality issues vs engineering differences and mature platforms. They all get screwed together about the same these days its much more about $ vs styling vs niceties than actual reliability
They do their reports and industrys can buy them. There are no ads and the price is the same to everyone. Same as TV ratings.
Might want to check again, CR rates Hyundai over Caddy and many other areas where you can see something does not ad up. Then when you read their reviews the Bias stands out unless you are a fanboy. I remember when they said the Chevy Cav had cheap plastic yet said the Toyota Rav4 was great and abover average. I use to own a Rav4, it was no better then any Cav of the same year. I am sure others here can point out their more famous and bigger bias's that show up.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,476
- 3,974
- 126
Serious problem has always been defined. I suspect you simply don't like their definition. I've filled out the survey forms for years. It says that normal maintanence or normal wear-and-tear are not serious problems. Then it says that a serious problem is considered serious because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime. If a problem (not regular wear-and-tear) costs a lot of money, completely failed, caused actual safety problems, or required a lot of time to fix, it is a serious problem. You could argue that a Lexus owner's definition of "costs a lot of money" differs from a Kia's owner. But you can't argue that it isn't defined at all. Then the problems are weighted so that important problems (for example engine failure) are given more weight than unimportant problems (for example the automatic windows don't work). You could argue that the weighting is subjective, but you didn't.
As for the black circles, Consumer Reports bases the ratings on objective tests. They use repeatable and measureable tests (Gas mileage, crash test results, turning radius, acceleration, braking distance, usable space, etc). Subjective things like a car's "look" or "styling" is not considered at all. The result is an ugly horibly styled vehicle that performs well gets good ratings in CR. This is the part that many people hate. They want beautiful, well-shaped vehicles to score well instead.
The subjective part is how each of these measurables are weighted. Sure, opinion is discussed in the text, but Consumer Reports frequently discusses opinions in the text that aren't included in the ratings. But it all really boils down to the numbers. Compare JD Powers to Consumer Reports. The results are quite similar. I'll post 2003 model JD Powers 3-year study numbers and 2001 model Consumer Reports 5-year study numbers on all 30 makes that CR includes in their test. I use these because I have them available, but no they aren't the exact same comparison. I'm sorry I don't have the exact same comparison easilly available.
I hand typed these in from my best interpolation of the picture data. I may be off by a very slight bit (my eyes may have been poor on the CR graph). The data is scaled by dividing the problems reported by the average problems of all models. This helps put JD and CR on the same basis. These are termed "Scaled" in the table below. Then to show differences, I sorted each and gave them ranks. Due to Excel sorting, if vehicle brands had ties in the report, I may have inavertently swapped them, but they are still tied. Finally, I took the CR Scaled number and divided by the JD Scaled number to give an overall difference in the reports. For example, both gave Lexus the 1st place marks. But CR had only 55.8% of the serious problems compared to JD's total problems.
Make ( JD Place , JD Scaled ) ( CR Place , CR Scaled ) CR/JD
Acura ( 6 , 81.1% ) ( 3 , 52.9% ) 65.3%
Audi ( 26 , 122.9% ) ( 16 , 110.1% ) 89.5%
BMW ( 8 , 93.4% ) ( 18 , 111.4% ) 119.3%
Buick ( 3 , 67.4% ) ( 10 , 85.0% ) 126.1%
Cadillac ( 4 , 71.8% ) ( 29 , 147.7% ) 205.6%
Chevrolet ( 18 , 106.2% ) ( 22 , 115.6% ) 108.9%
Chrysler ( 14 , 102.2% ) ( 21 , 115.6% ) 113.1%
Dodge ( 22 , 113.7% ) ( 24 , 116.3% ) 102.3%
Ford ( 11 , 98.7% ) ( 11 , 97.5% ) 98.8%
GMC ( 16 , 105.3% ) ( 23 , 116.3% ) 110.5%
Honda ( 7 , 85.5% ) ( 4 , 55.7% ) 65.2%
Hyundai ( 21 , 111.5% ) ( 17 , 110.7% ) 99.4%
Infiniti ( 9 , 94.7% ) ( 5 , 61.3% ) 64.7%
Isuzu ( 27 , 124.7% ) ( 12 , 100.3% ) 80.5%
Jeep ( 24 , 116.3% ) ( 20 , 114.2% ) 98.2%
Lexus ( 1 , 59.9% ) ( 1 , 33.4% ) 55.8%
Lincoln ( 10 , 96.9% ) ( 15 , 105.9% ) 109.2%
Mazda ( 20 , 107.0% ) ( 7 , 72.4% ) 67.7%
Mercedes-Benz ( 17 , 105.7% ) ( 30 , 149.1% ) 141.0%
Mercury ( 2 , 66.5% ) ( 14 , 103.1% ) 155.0%
Mitsubishi ( 23 , 114.5% ) ( 8 , 80.8% ) 70.5%
Nissan ( 19 , 106.6% ) ( 9 , 82.2% ) 77.1%
Oldsmobile ( 12 , 98.7% ) ( 27 , 139.3% ) 141.2%
Pontiac ( 15 , 102.2% ) ( 26 , 135.1% ) 132.2%
Saab ( 30 , 143.6% ) ( 19 , 111.4% ) 77.6%
Saturn ( 28 , 127.3% ) ( 13 , 101.7% ) 79.9%
Subaru ( 13 , 102.2% ) ( 6 , 65.5% ) 64.1%
Toyota ( 5 , 78.9% ) ( 2 , 43.2% ) 54.8%
Volkswagen ( 29 , 131.7% ) ( 28 , 140.7% ) 106.8%
Volvo ( 25 , 119.8% ) ( 25 , 125.4% ) 104.6%
The important number is in the last column. Note how similar the ratio is. If the ratio is 100%, then both studies had the exact same reliability. Half of all makes were within 20% of each other. Half of all makes were placed within just a few spots in both reports. There are notable differences.
[*]Cadillac, Mercedes, Mercury, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac scored much worse in CR than JD. They scored worse in % and in Placement.
[*]Lexus, Toyota, Acura, and Honda scored better in % in CR but were placed about the same as JD.
[*]Isuzu, Subaru, and Mazda scored better in % in CR and were placed better in CR.
But overall, those numbers are quite close. Look at how many of the CR/JD ratio numbers are near 100% meaning they had the exact same reliablity scores in both tests. That result similarity is quite remarkable if one is real and the other is "biased" and wrong.
sygyzy
Lifer
- Oct 21, 2000
- 14,001
- 4
- 76
When Hyundai was struggling, they turned the industry upside-down with their super warranties. In that time, they have risen through the ranks and now produce a very nice competitor to the Camry (the Sonata). Now they don't even need the fancy warranty to attract people anymore. Will this new warranty improve the quality of GM vehicles?
But they have improved the quality...that's what reading the article would have told you
Originally posted by: Gulzakar
I don't need to "miss" anything... simple fact, GM makes on the whole, poorly built cars. I'm sorry if you own one.
And you're basing this on...preconceived stereotypes...and what else?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter