Ask the Car People.SM


High End Luxury Cars

24723 messages,  Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum.

What is this discussion about? Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan



Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.

A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.

Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.

Messages Page 1611 of 2473

#16096 of 24723 Re: Sources: Porsche, Hyundai make big gains in quality study [merc1] by syswei

Jun 08, 2006 (10:12 am)

Replying to: merc1 (Jun 07, 2006 9:30 pm)
from the WSJ:
 
....This year for the first time, J.D. Power divided the publicly published results into two categories: design quality, measuring things like the usefulness of dashboard displays and controls, and production quality, which measures the level of defects and malfunctions. Based on the two different categories, Porsche had 49 defect or malfunction problems and 35 design problems per 100 vehicles. BMW, in contrast, had 82 design problems and 52 defect or malfunction problems, per 100 vehicles. Problems with the new 3 series, in particular, dragged BMW down.
 
The survey itself has been totally redesigned this year, for the first time since 1998. The aim was to make it more relevant to the vehicles on the road today, which are loaded with high-tech features ranging from DVD players to navigation systems and have faster production cycles, as well as to help car makers better identify problems with these models.
 
The new survey, based on questionnaire responses from 63,607 buyers and lessees of new 2006 models, asked about 217 specific problems, ranging from rear DVD-system playback to loose molding to peeling paint. That's up from 135 problems previously queried. And the questions were more detailed than in the past, asking, for instance, if "a navigation system freezes up" rather than if it's just "not working properly."
 
....Joe Ivers, executive director of quality and customer-satisfaction research for J.D. Power, says that his own analysis shows that the changes in rankings weren't due to the different questions being asked, but rather could be explained by changes in the vehicle lineup.
 
The success of Porsche, which jumped to No. 1 in the nameplate rankings, can be partly attributed to the totally new Cayman mid-engine hard-top sports car, which came in at the top of the compact premium sporty car segment. In addition, the German car maker made a number of quality improvements to its Cayenne sport-utility vehicle.
 
"We study the results of quality studies ... and we go to the factory and make changes," says Tony Fouladpour, Porsche spokesman....

#16097 of 24723 This year's JDP IQ Study by tagman

Jun 08, 2006 (11:10 am)

Replying to: syswei (Jun 08, 2006 10:12 am)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that the methodology of this study leaves a lot to be desired. It is ludicrous, IMO, to combine actual defects/malfunctions with design problems/irregularities into the same study, as the latter can be subjective.
 
The sudden and large-scale re-positioning of the study's results is an indication that either the previous study provided erroneous results, or the current one does. What does that say for JDP's credibility? In REAL life, the manufacturer's didn't SUDDENLY have massive changes with their initial quality.
 
So, only one thing is TRULY evident here . . . last year's and this year's studies contradict one another, and they can't BOTH be correct. Since JDP is a company that should understand statistics, then they should KNOW that so many major shifts in positions are statistically unlikely . . . meaning that either previous studies were wrong, or the current one is wrong.
 
Regardless of which study is tainted, it is PATHETIC, IMO.
 
SHAME ON JD POWERS for having so much influence with corrupt statistical data, only to further have it be unfairly used by the undeserving winners of the study, and for the blight and stigma suffered by those losers that didn't deserve it.
 
TagMan

#16098 of 24723 Re: This year's JDP IQ Study [tagman] by syswei

Jun 08, 2006 (11:34 am)

Replying to: tagman (Jun 08, 2006 11:10 am)
It is ludicrous, IMO, to combine actual defects/malfunctions with design problems/irregularities into the same study, as the latter can be subjective.
 
I don't think it is that ludicruous because they are still measuring things that matter to the customer. That these issues are subjective I don't find important in itself...if a design issue is important to half the people and not the other half, it is presumably reflected accordingly (i.e., will hurt a company less than if 100% of customers experienced the same defect/malfunction).
 
However it would have been helpful for JDP to produce a separate set of rankings that measured just the defects/malfunctions.

#16099 of 24723 Re: This year's JDP IQ Study [syswei] by tagman

Jun 08, 2006 (11:41 am)

Replying to: syswei (Jun 08, 2006 11:34 am)
I don't think it is that ludicruous because they are still measuring things that matter to the customer.
 
They are supposed to be measuring initial quality, and to include subjective material into that mix skews the definition of initial quality either this year or last year, because now there are TWO DIFFERENT definitions for initial quality.
 
However it would have been helpful for JDP to produce a separate set of rankings that measured just the defects/malfunctions.
 
HELPFUL is an understatement.
SEPERATE is EXACTLY what should have happened to have a legitimate and statistically viable study . . . especially coming off the heels of previous year's studies.
 
You just can't have two totally different studies claimed to be the same, with the same title, and get two totally different results and claim that they are both accurate . . . unless you are Joe Ivers working for JD Powers!
 
TagMan

#16100 of 24723 Re: This year's JDP IQ Study [tagman] by syswei

Jun 08, 2006 (11:45 am)

Replying to: tagman (Jun 08, 2006 11:41 am)
Yes, maybe it would have been better to rename the study entirely, since the methodology has evolved. Possibly someone decided that there was some "brand equity" and that people were simply used to the IQS name....kind of like the S500 in Japan and Europe.

#16101 of 24723 Re: This year's JDP IQ Study [syswei] by tagman

Jun 08, 2006 (11:57 am)

Replying to: syswei (Jun 08, 2006 11:45 am)
Sure there is value in the name of the JDP IQ study. To retain its value, they shoud have ADDED a new study to coincide with it. Now, they have ruined the merit of the study because it is in direct contradiction with previous results, and what does that say?
 
It says that they now have VERY different winners and losers, who have with rare exception, done NOTHING different.
 
Sorry, but the auto industry is a multi-billion dollar industry that deserves better than a B.S. study.
 
TagMan

#16103 of 24723 JD Powers Studies by hpowders

Jun 08, 2006 (12:21 pm)

results have been questionable at best, IMO.
 
The fact is JD Power is a big business where maximizing profits is their main concern.
Whatever you want to say about Consumers Union, at least they don't allow and hence, charge, manufacturers for using their ratings.
JD Powers makes a huge amount of money in charging auto manufacturers for using their ratings in their advertising.
Not much integrity here, IMO.
 

#16104 of 24723 Re: JD Powers Studies [hpowders] by lexusguy

Jun 08, 2006 (12:48 pm)

Replying to: hpowders (Jun 08, 2006 12:21 pm)
I never really paid much attention to the IQS. The VDS I think is much more useful information, especially for those of us that keep our cars longer than two years.

#16105 of 24723 Re: JD Powers Studies [lexusguy] by hpowders

Jun 08, 2006 (1:06 pm)

Replying to: lexusguy (Jun 08, 2006 12:48 pm)
I do believe BMW did much better on the last IQS study.
Looks like the new 3-series brought them down.
 
Looks like Toyota and Honda have a serious threat in Hyundai.
 
Well, when one company turns up the heat, we consumers can only benefit as the other manufacturers step up to the challenge.
I wonder if they are brazen enough to turn out a $60-70k HELM.
Now that really would be aggressive!

Messages Page 1611 of 2473

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement