05GT-O.C.D.

per J.D. Power
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070606/vehic...ity.html?.v=11

As much as I hate Toyota's, this surprises me.

Boomer

Nice to see...

Fireball1

Congratulations to Ford for doing a fine job quality-wise, but the report is a bit misleading. Ford takes the number one spot in quality by winning the most car segments...but only when its own divisions (Ford, Lincoln & Mercury) are counted along with Japanese auto maker Mazda (which Ford has a 1/3 stake). If JD Power just counted the cars Ford produces, the outcome would be different.

GhostTX

Alt story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19073071/

Hollywood_North GT

Ninety days tells you NOTHING about quality. I'm sure even Cherys are trouble-free for 90 days.

Let's reconvene in six years and see if Ford's customer satisfaction index for the vehicles listed here are still as high.

vistablue mustang

I am proud of Ford and glad to see something positive, I am not a fan of Japanese autos (and thats putting it nicely) I see the quality of Fords cars and truck improving with each new model. The Edge, Fusion, New Escape, and the Flex looks to improve on this even more. 90 days does not prove quality but Toyota has recalled the last two body styles of trucks they made for serious issues so aparently the quality is leaving them as well (or maybe it was never there, but my conspiracy theroy has been written here before). Way to go Ford, keep it up

Francis

Link to autoblog post with links to pictures of the actual numbers:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/06/f...al-quality-st/

I've heard people talk about how JD power IQS doesn't represent anything meaningful, but I'm not entirely sure what it means.

An interesting observation: The JD Power numbers have no correlation on Consumers Reports 3-year reliability survey.

CR results: Of the most reliable top 10 makes, 8 are Japanese. The other two are Hyundai, and Mercury. The only two japanese makes to not make the top 10 are Nissan and Suzuki, being in the bottom third. Ford is around the half-way mark.

Other interesting results:
JD Power ranks Porsche as #1 in IQS. CR puts Porsche in the bottom quarter.
Mercedes-Benz: JD Power: #4. CR: Dead Last.
Mazda: JD Power: 2nd Worst CR: Top third
Jaguar: JD Power: Top quarter CR: Bottom eighth

Almost forgot to mention:
CR results for the '05 Mustang said that V6 results were below average reliability, but GT results were average.
'06 results show that both the V6 and the GT are below average.

Also: CR rates satisfaction as percentage of owners who would buy their vehicle again. According to CR, reliability has almost no bearing on satisfaction.
CR's 3 most satisfying cars:
92% Prius (Boo)
89% Corvette (Double-boo)
88% S2000 + Miata

The V8 Mustang ties around 10th, at 85%.

Hollywood_North GT

All of which proves that these rags and their "scientific" surveys really mean nothing at all.

instigator311

It's definately a step in the right direction, but I also agree that initial quality doesn't go very far. However, had Toyota or Honda topped those studies, there's no doubt that they'd suddenly be used as a Bible and their validity would be incontestable.

I-70 west

I`m with you all the way, I don`t care what any survey says I`ll buy a Ford everytime!

hi5.0

gotta wait to see how they hold up after a few years before making any conclusions about improved quality this or that.

mustang_sallad

I gotta disagree... All of this brings to light the fact that these are surveys of two entirely different things. Nowhere does this JD Power survey imply that these are equivalent to long term reliability results. JD Power has the Vehicle Dependability Study as well, which is a measure of long term performance and is more on par with the CR survey quoted up above.

So if there's no correlation between the results of these two surveys, that doesn't necessarily mean its all bunk. That would just imply that a vehicle that seems to be of high quality to the owner early on might not necessarily be problem free down the road. Whether that's true of these recent results for Ford can't be proven for another 2 or 3 years, we'll just have to see.

I totally agree that these surveys aren't very scientific, how can they be? Vehicle quality is a very complicated thing to try to measure, but if you've got a better way of quantifying the quality or reliability of vehicles and actually measuring that on a large scale, then you should probably get in touch with JDP or CR. In the mean time, we can just accept these surveys for what they are and look to them in terms of the RELATIVE scores of companies, as well as general trends, such as Ford's recent improvements.

The fact remains that Ford has made steady improvements in terms of "quality" over the last few years, while Toyota has run into slightly more troubles during its continuing expansion. We also know that the general public is still convinced that Ford is about the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality. So headlines like this will do A LOT of good for the company, and I think they deserve it.

Hollywood_North GT

Well, OK, I suppose if ya gotta...



I'm still right, though.

scottie1113

As was said about my father: he may not always be right but he's never in doubt.

But seriously, I agree with you. How can J D Powers discern a vehicle's quality in a survey over 90 days of ownership? Some customers experience a few niggling defects and have them fixed. Others have more serious problems, but a complaint is a complaint they way they score it.

I think CR's approach is better: rate a car after a few years in the real world. Then when the previous owner(s) have had the problems corrected buy it used. I'm not a big fan of depreciation.

mustang_sallad

hahaha! i love it.

Well, all I'm saying is that this survey is called the INITIAL quality survey. It's not trying to be a reliability survey. So this might not tell you everything you need to know about what it's gonna be like to own this car for several years (well it definitely doesn't tell you that) but it still is a way to compare one vehicle to the next.

Hollywood_North GT

I guess my point was that with today's build technology ANY car should stand up for 90 days...even a Chery. Therefore, to my mind, the parameters of this "evaluation" are completely and utterly worthless.

htwag

The IQS must measure something. I had Honda (05) whose battery went dead the morning after I drove home and back to the Honda place for something. I had an 03 Lincoln LS that came with a spare but no jack.
As for CU, I can't figure out what they mean. My average gas mileage - highway - on my butt-ugly '04 Honda Element has always been higher than their results. I'm not sure how they test stuff.