Strategic Vision Says: “VW Has Best Total Quality, But Toyota Has Fewest Problems"

Hmm...could it be possible that Toyota lost points in quality because of the "cheap looking plastic interior" that some people seem to like complaining about (I personally don't care/mind)?
Good to see that Toyota was in the top 10 lowest problems brands, considering that 8 out of the 10 are luxury car brands (in my opinion). =)

 

I'm sure it has something to do with that. Even with lowered expectations in a toyota, there are some low quality aspects to the plastics and suspension.

I don't see any trouble with one brand having fewer defects and another having higher quality. The first is a measure of how many things brake, the second is a measure of how well things perform compared to expectations.

 

looks like a bunch of crap to me and no, i'm not talking about toyota's interiors.

 

Its interesting that car and driver only includes the Ford Mustang out of its list of 10 best

2012 10Best Cars – Feature – Car and Driver
Different things going on. Most catagories toyota won in consumer reports - green car, small suv, family suv, family hauler are not included.

It seemed to like the 4 cyl honda accord more than the camry hybrid or sonata. It has written before that it likes the honda fit more than the prius, but who knows the prius might be there if it was green car instead of small car.

I definitely agree with car and driver - the highlander, rav4, avalanche maybe aren't in the top 10 or even 20 cars, they only make it because of catagories.

 

Never heard of Strategic Vision before.
The fact that they don't tell you what they factor into their alleged Total Quality formula means that, on the basis of this survey, I am not likely to hire them as consultants should I ever need such a service.
Which I doubt I will.

 

I've heard of them before... just wait until those "top rated" VWs, BMWs and Land Rovers own their vehicles for 5+ years and see how reliable they are...

 

i've owned one vw, that was enough for a lifetime. spent more time in the shop than on the road.

 

Like kgall said - without knowing what went into the rating, this is meaningless. Certainly many of the cars high on the list have terrible records for reliability - my favorite measure of quality.

 

This reads like a report card for hire.

 

The headline is very misleading. You really can't separate quality of materials from the rest of the quality aspects of the car. Only the Golf stands out as a VW that's a reliable car in terms of engineering and assembly quality. But that isn't enough to keep the entire VW brand from being near the bottom of the list.

JD Powers ratings can also be misleading, if you don't pay a attention to the word "initial" in their survey results. Their surveys are all done in the first 6 month of ownership. For long term reliability ratings, the only place to turn is the Consumer Reports annual auto issue. And as it always has proven, even as US makers have improved, the Japanese continue to dominate.

 

+1
"top rated" Jag's too. We used to have a Range Rover. Like folks that buy boats, the happiest 2 days of your life are the day you buy it, and the day you sell it.

 

If I'm not mistaken, JD Power has a glaring oversight in how they determine quality, because they are going by number of reports per vehicle, not considering mileage; thus if 80 problems are reported for Toyotas over a given period and the same number on Ferraris over the same period you get the impression the reliablity is the same even if the Ferraris have travelled only a tiny fraction of the same miles.

This is why Jaguar--really, Jaguar?--seems to be so high on the list. The are comparitive garage queens.

Comparing a dodge on this list to a Honda is probably pretty fair, but a Jaguar to a Mazda, no, the Mazda is a regular Joe's car and probably sees a lot more miles.

 

Then you have to consider that the problem reported could be something like a loose molding vs. engine stalling.

 

JD powers inital quality is a worthless test. Its a money maker, but does not tell much about the cars other than what gets out of the factory without QA. All the makers are significantly better here than 30 years ago. Their tests after 3 years, the dependability study, does have some merrit. You will note Jaguar is near the bottom of that one. It also matters a great deal on what model. A maker can have trouble with just one model and it can tank their results for everything.

 

Yep. JDPA IQS is pretty worthless IMHO as there doesn't seem to be much correlation between how well it does in that vs. in the longer term. Who buys cars and gets rid of them in 90 days?

An example of their 3 year VDS "long-term" test that has more merit is at 2012 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study | J.D. Power Autos. However, 3 years is still nowhere near long enough. Lots of people keep and buy cars that are older than 3 years.

 

After three years, routine maintenance and climate have increasing impact. Desert sun starts taking a greater toll on paint and interiors. Snow belt salt starts eating bodies. Pa pot holes chews up suspensions. Then, without a paper trail, how do you even know the oil has been changed.

The first two have greatly improved in terms of holding up. User abuse is something a good 3+ year study needs to keep in mind.

Reminds me of a discussion on another forum about the difference between domestic and foreign brands in reliability. Most there are DIY maintenance with older cars('80s and'90s era). One poster put forth the hypothesis that the observed difference might be do to self fulfilling prophecy. Those that bought a Toyota and all were looking for a long lasting car and took the recommended maintenance steps. Those that got American didn't expect much from the car because of the manufacturers deserved reputation from the past, so they simply didn't put in as much effort into the car's care. Then it became a garbage in, garbage out situation. Not saying that there wasn't a difference, just that the gap espoused by popular magazines and common wisdom wasn't as large as this group's experience.