VW at bottom again

[rshaw125]

According to the new JD Powers ranking VW is still bringing up the rear along with Landrover in the quality department.I believe that their sample size is much larger than CR and it covers 3 years.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/co...ws+%2B+analysis

 

[GMFan]

After dealing with a 1999 VW Jetta in our family, I'd say it's not surprising.

 

[astraelraen]

I doubt Buick really has a higher "quality" than their GM counterparts that share the same architecture. Its all the same parts for 100% of their lineup isn't it? I mean, at least in the US Buick doesn't have a single non-shared car. That leads me to believe people who drive Buicks are crazy. Maybe the rest of the world already knew that though.

And I'm not quite sure how VW can have 260 problems per 100 vehicles, but Audi only has 159. The lower 1/2 of Audi's lineup is a VW with a nicer interior.

 

[buster]

They certainly have had their share of problematic cars.

 

[d00df00d]

Quote:
The study... measures problems experienced by original owners...

The study depends on owner complaints. If you don't use any of the car's features and either don't know or don't care when something goes wrong, you're not going to complain and the problem won't show up in the survey.

Also, the study is done over a period of time (3 years). What if one car is driven a lot in that time, whereas another car is driven very little? You'd be comparing a car with 100k miles to a car with 50k miles.

In other words, the study has a bias in favor of cars with oblivious or indifferent owners who don't drive much. What segment of the market fits that description better than Buick owners?

Meanwhile, pretty much the opposite is true of VW. Clearly they have problems sometimes, but if you compared a VW to a Buick under equal conditions then I suspect they'd be a lot closer than this survey indicates.

 

[bretfraz]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Quote:
The study... measures problems experienced by original owners...

The study depends on owner complaints. If you don't use any of the car's features and either don't know or don't care when something goes wrong, you're not going to complain and the problem won't show up in the survey.

Also, the study is done over a period of time (3 years). What if one car is driven a lot in that time, whereas another car is driven very little? You'd be comparing a car with 100k miles to a car with 50k miles.

In other words, the study has a bias in favor of cars with oblivious or indifferent owners who don't drive much. What segment of the market fits that description better than Buick owners?

Meanwhile, pretty much the opposite is true of VW. Clearly they have problems sometimes, but if you compared a VW to a Buick under equal conditions then I suspect they'd be a lot closer than this survey indicates.


I'm sorry but your thought process makes no sense.

1. Three years is more than enough time to even out any statistic anomaly. Sure, it's better to have a larger and older stats pool but the stats need to be current to maintain relevance, so researchers have to draw the line somewhere. Three years is a good cut off as serious problems will have cropped up in a large percentage of cars, recurring problems will jump out at researchers but cars will not be so old as to suffer from normal wear and tear which can skew reliability stats.

2. You are correct about complaining owners. You might be correct about indifferent and oblivious owners. But you cannot have both and have good data. Complaining owners are not indifferent and indifferent owners do not complain.

3. You cannot build a statistical model on the concept of, "If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, did it make a sound?" If an owner has a problem with their car but doesn't complain and does not take it in for service, is there really a problem, statistically speaking? I say no.

 

[d00df00d]

1. I think you might not have understood that point. I agree that 3 years is a good amount of time. The problem is that they didn't take mileage into account, thereby failing to consider a whole mess of important variables.

2. Exactly. That means there is an inherent weakness in the study that undermines the validity of the data, which is my point.

3. Would you say that a car belching blue smoke doesn't really have a problem if the owner doesn't know or doesn't care? Cars are not closed systems. If a car has a problem that its owner doesn't know or care about, another person might know and might care. That seems important for a study that purports to inform people about what car to buy.

 

[PT1]

JD Powers excellent reputation is based on hard data and excellent statistical analysis. That is why so many industries pay such close attention to their reports. Your personal experiences and attempt to shoot holes in their report are futile.

 

[MillerMan]

VW next to last...............really, now how can that be?

I see more VW's sitting on the side of the road waiting for a tow truck than any other brand, and many of them are less than 3 years old

 

[ffracer]

There are a lot of VWs and Audis at work and most have loads of complaints about defects and longevity. Usually related to ignition, electronics, and body hardware. Even my racing buddy who owns a VW/Audi indy shop said, "How do you think I can afford to race?" Too bad, as I like the stiff sprung VWs and Audis to drive.

Some Buicks, as much I can't stand rolling sofas, are very reliable. Anything with the later 3800s has a driveline that is indestructable. They blew up enough Buick turbos at Indy to figure out all of the bugs. Now its one reliable engine.

 

[d00df00d]

PT1, I see what you're saying. It just occurs to me that JD Power & Associates doesn't really have to make an airtight case to be a powerful marketing force. They gather data, make charts, and give out awards, and make it all very visible and seem authoritative. I would think that would be enough for the industry to pay attention, so I don't think the fact that the industry follows them really means anything about the validity of their data.

If they really are as scientifically rigorous as I think you are suggesting, could you point me to some info about how they test and why? I'm really interested to see.

 

[bretfraz]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. I think you might not have understood that point. I agree that 3 years is a good amount of time. The problem is that they didn't take mileage into account, thereby failing to consider a whole mess of important variables.

2. Exactly. That means there is an inherent weakness in the study that undermines the validity of the data, which is my point.

3. Would you say that a car belching blue smoke doesn't really have a problem if the owner doesn't know or doesn't care? Cars are not closed systems. If a car has a problem that its owner doesn't know or care about, another person might know and might care. That seems important for a study that purports to inform people about what car to buy.



No, I didn't misunderstand the point. The research is based on length of ownership. I don't know how or if mileage played a part in their survey. You will have to ask JD Power about that. I'm sure if mileage was a statistical variable, they would have announced it. How do you know if they failed to consider mileage if you don't know their criteria?

Your comment of an inherent weakness in their study is purely an opinion. If you have factual basis for your position, please post it with all corresponding references.

I have no idea what belching blue smoke has to do with JD Power's data collection process. You are throwing in a variable that makes no sense in the context of this report.

Sorry, but I am more confused than ever.

 

[Ryan02SS]

I can believe it. My GF has an 03 Passat with the 1.8T engine. Stupid F****** VW dealer did oil changes for 30K miles with regular 5W-30 and not the VW501 5W-40 Syn spec and caused sludge buildup. I've since addressed that problem but it still has a alot of mechanical and electrical issues. Leaking sunroof, two bad CV boots before 40K miles. Brake switch dead twice. It's started to have a slight miss at cold and warm idle now. All under 45K miles.

 

[bretfraz]

Originally Posted By: PT1
JD Powers excellent reputation is based on hard data and excellent statistical analysis. That is why so many industries pay such close attention to their reports. Your personal experiences and attempt to shoot holes in their report are futile.


Well said. JD Power has a long standing reputation for their analysis and data collection methods. They package this data, market it and sell it to automakers and mfr's in other industries. This is the foundation of their business and the fact that global mfr's pay huge $$$ for their results says a lot about the quality of their work.

 

[firemachine69]

JD Powers? Reliable source of info?

 

[ARB1977]

Our 97 Jetta 2 slow has been fantastic. The paint sucks and the door handles are faded pretty bad. The maintence is pretty expensive (by far cheaper in Texas compaired to California). Doesnt use any oil. Im debating on selling my Tacoma for a TDI Sport Waggon.

 

[Kestas]

Though JD Powers and CR are less than perfect, and we seem to make a sport out of bashing their results, I think these surveys are the best we have. I can't think of anything better that we can turn to.

 

[VNTS]

at least better than friggen Consumer Reports, which has no clue how to perform a random statisticle sampling yet reports data like they are know it alls.

 

[javacontour]

I'd say Buicks are either driven a lot, such as company cars or rentals, or only driven to Church on Sunday's.

I suspect things even out, as I suspect there are many VW owners who live in large cities and drive relatively few miles.

They are not perfect apples to apples comparisons, but as someone said, they are the best we have.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Though JD Powers and CR are less than perfect, and we seem to make a sport out of bashing their results, I think these surveys are the best we have. I can't think of anything better that we can turn to.

A notice at the bottom of every page in the press release specifically says that statistical significance is not indicated in the ratings. This means that the ranking is largely meaningless. You can be vaguely sure that the numbers near the very top of the chart are better than the ones near the very bottom, but that's only based on intuition. Bad data is not better than no data.

However, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Assuming the data is valid, the value of the survey depends on how you take it. You have to keep in mind that what they don't say is just as important as what they do say.

Let's take this study as an example. What it says is that, in a given year, you'll see a lot more broken VWs than broken Buicks. If I were thinking of setting up a repair shop, this data would help me decide which cars to focus on. If I were thinking of opening a dealership, I might want to take it into consideration as well.

On the other hand, the study doesn't say anything about how the cars do with mileage, which parts break, and how expensive and time consuming the repairs are. It only considers the age of the vehicle and doesn't discriminate too much on the nature of the problem. So, if I were buying a car, I would not find the study particularly informative since those things are very important to me.