J.D. Power: Buick and Cadillac Rate above Toyota brand in LONG TERM Quality

[doh]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060809/law079.html?.v=66

Problems per 100 Vehicles

1.Lexus 136
2.Mercury 151
3.Buick 153
4.Cadillac 163
5.Toyota 179

The Vehicle Dependability Gap Between Luxury and Higher-Volume Brands Narrows Significantly
Wednesday August 9, 1:00 pm ET

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif., Aug. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The gap in long-term quality between luxury and non-luxury brands has been cut in half during the past four years, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Vehicle Dependability Study(SM)(VDS) released today.

The study, which measures problems experienced by original owners of 3-year-old (2003 model-year) vehicles, finds that there is an ever-smaller gap in reported problems between luxury and higher-volume brands -- averaging 15 PP100, down from 31 PP100 in 2003. Quality improvements with non-luxury brands are seen primarily in two categories -- ride, handling, braking, and engine and transmission -- which both have a strong impact on customer satisfaction.

The presence of several non-luxury brands among the top-ranking brands in the industry further underscores the shrinking dependability gap between luxury and non-luxury brands. While Lexus is the top-ranking brand in vehicle dependability for a 12th consecutive year and luxury-make Cadillac ranks fourth, three of the top five-ranking brands in vehicle dependability are non-luxury makes. Mercury and Buick, respectively, follow Lexus in the brand rankings, and Toyota ranks fifth.

"The industry continues to make improvements in long-term vehicle quality, and not just among luxury makes that benefit from smaller production volumes on the assembly line," said Neal Oddes, director of product research and analysis for J.D. Power and Associates. "Many high-volume, mass-marketed brands have acquired a foundation of quality products from which to challenge the normally strong performances of the luxury brands. What this means for consumers is that they don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money to get a high-quality used vehicle, and vehicles with high long-term dependability ratings retain more of their original value than brands with lower dependability ratings. This pays off for the consumer when it's time to trade in their vehicle."

The benefits of strong vehicle dependability are particularly high for manufacturers. In addition to retaining their value better, brands that perform well in VDS have higher levels of owner recommendation and repurchase intent, and increased sales volumes compared to brands with average to poor dependability ratings. According to actual retail transaction data from the Power Information Network, a division of J.D. Power and Associates, sales made to loyal customers -- those who trade in the same nameplate as the one they purchase -- result in an average vehicle gross of $250 more per sale than those made to non-loyal customers. Additionally, vehicles with high levels of reported problems have higher rates of failure of vehicle components such as brake pads, brake rotors and batteries, which is costly to manufacturers if the failure occurs while the vehicle is still under warranty.

"Perceptions about dependability can have a tremendous impact on an owner's satisfaction with their vehicle, which is no small matter for manufacturers," said Oddes. "In terms of retained value, recommendation and repurchase intent, and component replacement, vehicle dependability can have a direct impact on a manufacturer's bottom line."

Lexus, Toyota and Honda models dominate the segment rankings. Lexus models lead in four segments: GS 300/GS 430 (midsize premium car), LS 430 (large premium car), SC 430 (premium sporty car) and GX 470 (midsize premium MAV). Four Toyota models also lead in their respective segments: Echo (sub-compact car), RAV4 (compact MAV), Highlander (midsize MAV) and Tundra (large pickup). Honda models rank highest in three segments: Civic (compact car), S2000 (compact premium sporty car) and Odyssey (van). Models by Acura, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Mazda, Mercury and GMC each rank highest in one segment.

MINI and Kia are the most improved brands in the study, although both continue to rank below the industry average. MINI, which was first included in the VDS in 2005, earns a 103 PP100 (27 percent) year-over-year improvement. Kia has improved twice as much as any other brand in the past three years, improving 87 PP100 (22 percent) from 2005.

The 2006 Vehicle Dependability Study is based on responses from 47,620 original owners of 2003 model-year vehicles. For more information on vehicle ratings, visit the J.D. Power Consumer Center at www.jdpower.com .


2006 Nameplate Ranking
Problems per 100 Vehicles

Lexus 136
Mercury 151
Buick 153
Cadillac 163
Toyota 179
Acura 184
Honda 194
Jaguar 210
BMW 212
Infiniti 215
Lincoln 220
Ford 224
Oldsmobile 224
Industry Average 227
Chrysler 232
Pontiac 232
Subaru 232
GMC 239
Mercedes-Benz 240
Chevrolet 241
Nissan 242
Mazda 243
Porsche 248
Hyundai 253
Dodge 258
Mitsubishi 260
Jeep 264
Volvo 272
Audi 279
MINI 280
Isuzu 283
Saturn 289
Volkswagen 299
HUMMER 307
Kia 310
Suzuki 318
Saab 326
Land Rover 438

Top Three Models per Segment

Midsize Sporty Car
Highest Ranked: Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Toyota Solara
Ford Mustang

See Full List of Rankings at LINK

[GM_Fanatic]

Since when do people call "SUV's", "MAV's"?

Oh, and GM looks pretty decent too.

[rsbaker]

I am not pleased with where Chevrolet GMC and Pontiac are on this list. All GM divisions should be above industry average and should always be above Ford. What the heck is going on with Saab it looks awful Saturn should be doing better as well. Great numbers for Buick and Cadillac, though they should be beating Mercury.

[boblutzfan]

I had a 1996 Mercury Cougar with the 4.6L V8. It was a good car. I drove it for 8 years and 119,000 trouble free miles. Their rating does not surprise me.

It is sad to see Oldsmobile on their... better quality than the industry average and they went out of business.

[Quickening]

Originally Posted by rsbaker

I am not pleased with where Chevrolet GMC and Pontiac are on this list. All GM divisions should be above industry average and should always be above Ford. What the heck is going on with Saab it look awful. Great numbers for Buick and Cadillac, though they should be eating Mercury.

Lol once you own a Saab you understand. Its a quirky little car with weird problems. There are some problems I have that I wish I didn't, but the car performs great and is a blast to drive

LOl I would think Toyota will fall with all the probes and recalls happening everyday.

[Ming]

This is an important study, because long-term reliability has long been the refuge of the Toyohonda defenders when it comes to quality surveys in general. We knew GM was doing well with Buick, etc. in the Initial Quality, and now it is showing up in long-term.

How many people here really think of a Buick as being more dependable long term than a Toyota or Honda? Or I should say, haven't we been conditioned to think the opposite? After YEARS of being told that those two brands have cars that run "forever without any problems" - the objective facts are starting to skew in the General's favor.

Now Resale Value - which GM recently said is already showing signs of improvement - will be the last bastion of support for the Toyohonda faithful.

[cfch3399]

Let's see what Mr TrueDelta has to say about this one.
Too bad about Chevy, Pontiac, and especially, Hummer and Saturn near the bottom there and Saab almost at the bottom, worse than Kia?!

[TahoeMikeZ71]

I think that GMC could do better.

[mkaresh]

Speak of the devil...

I like the VDS much better than the IQS. Good showing by domestic brands that sell to old people.

Two caveats with the VDS:

1. Old people report fewer problems, so brands that have older customers get a boost; no easy way around this one, it affects every quality and reliability study. Maybe I should ask birth year...

2. Third year isn't exactly long term. What I hear more and more is that people want to know how well a car holds up in years 5-8. Why is this important? Two words for you: resale value.

J.D. Power's VDS used to track five-year-old cars, but manufacturers weren't interested in buying this info because cars that old had often already been redesigned, and thus there was little to learn from a product improvement standpoint.

The Cadillac showing is the biggest surprise, because it includes the then-new CTS. Porsche's score got hammered by the new Cayenne, and I suspect that Saab's score is the result of the first-year new 9-3.

[usa1]

If you map these objective results against the selective and biased-prone surveying that Consumer Reports does and there is a huge disconnect in the results. This is simply more evidence that CR quality ratings are biased, flawed, and ultimately useless. I cancelled by long standing subscription to CR a few months ago and don't miss them one bit.

Mark

[Jkujo]

You know these numbers are going to get worse for GM because of those %@%*% ing MiniVans. Why don't they kill them now instead of having those rebadged vehicles kill their reliability scores.

[zeobandit]

Wow... Land Rover dead last. Pathetic.

[MNdudeswitz]

Wow does Saturn's ranking suck!!!!

[MrMax]

I have to agree with rsbaker. Great to see Cadillac and Buick up there, but I expect more from Chevy. Cadillac should be ahead of Lexus. Chevy should be ahead of Toyota.

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

That's all fine and good. But Buick and Cadillac are upscale brands. We need to get Chevrolet, Pontiac and GMC AT LEAST above the industry standard.