2005 Tow Hitch, Tint, Sunroof, Cd Player, Power Windows, Locks And Mirrors on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What do J.D. Power's quality ratings really measure?

Check these recently released J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Do they raise any questions in your mind? Premium sports-car maker Porsche sits in first place for the third straight year, so are Porsches really the best-built cars in the U.S. market? Korean brands Kia and Hyundai are second and fourth, so are Korean vehicles suddenly better than their US, European, and Japanese competitors? Are workaday Chevrolets (seventh place) better than premium Buicks (11th), and Buicks better than luxury Cadillacs (21st), even though all are assembled in General Motors plants with the same processes and many shared parts? Are Japanese Acuras (26th) worse than German Volkswagens (24th)? And is "quality" really what it used to be (and what most perceive it to be), a measure of build excellence? Or has it evolved into much more a measure of likeability and ease of use? To properly analyze these widely watched results, we must first understand what IQS actually studies, and what the numerical scores really mean. First, as its name indicates, it's all about "initial" quality, measured by problems reported by new-vehicle owners in their first 90 days of ownership. If something breaks or falls off four months in, it doesn't count here. Second, the scores are problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100. So Power's 2015 IQS industry average of 112 PP100 translates to just 1.12 reported problems per vehicle. Third, no attempt is made to differentiate BIG problems from minor ones. Thus a transmission or engine failure counts the same as a squeaky glove box door, tricky phone pairing, inconsistent voice recognition, or anything else that annoys the owner. Traditionally, a high-quality vehicle is one that is well-bolted together. It doesn't leak, squeak, rattle, shed parts, show gaps between panels, or break down and leave you stranded. By this standard, there are very few poor-quality new vehicles in today's U.S. market. But what "quality" should not mean, is subjective likeability: ease of operation of the radio, climate controls, or seat adjusters, phone pairing, music downloading, sizes of touch pads on an infotainment screen, quickness of system response, or accuracy of voice-recognition. These are ergonomic "human factors" issues, not "quality" problems. Yet these kinds of pleasability issues are now dominating today's JDP "quality" ratings.

Car buyers are paying big money for technology they don't use

J.D. Power released the results of its Tech Experience Index study that measures "how much owners like [in-car] technologies and how many problems they experience with them." Among the study's findings, automakers are loading vehicles with more software and digital experiences that owners claim they never learn how to use or decide they don't need. For example, owners report to J.D. Power that gesture controls, like those used by BMW (spinning a finger, for instance, can raise or lower the audio volume), don't improve the overall ownership experience. In fact, gesture controls received the lowest overall satisfaction score in the study for a second consecutive year. In another example, the study found that 61% of owners claim never having used "in-vehicle digital market technology," while 51% of respondents said they didn't need it. Driver/passenger communication technology was another sore point with users, with 52% saying they have never used the technology, and 40% of those saying they have no need for it. (10 Features owners say they want, and 7 they really don't). Conversely, some technologies are well received by owners. For American owners, rear-view cameras and so-called "ground view" cameras were among the top three desired technologies. We assume that "ground view" is a surround-view or 360-degree camera system. The one-pedal driving possible in a number of EV's with adjustable regen braking also scored very high marks and few claimed issues.  While it could be argued that owners who don't want to use a specific piece of technology should just avoid using it, the reality is that all of these unused features add cost to the final price of any vehicle. Considering that the average transaction price of a new vehicle hit a record $45,031 in September of 2021, controlling spiraling costs is a big deal. J.D. Power's survey results found that dealerships can play a big role in explaining new technology to buyers. Scores for some technologies like trailer assistance received higher scores from owners who received training from their dealers. Unfortunately, 71% of owners say they were taught how to use tech from outside sources whereas only 30% learned from a dealer. The results of this study are the product of responses from 110,827 owners of current model-year vehicles that J.D. Power surveyed after 90 days of ownership from February through July 2021.

EPA says it will more closely monitor fuel economy claims from automakers

The unintended acceleration brouhaha at Toyota led to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration tightening the vise on recall procedures. Likewise, the fuel economy kerfuffle that blew up with Hyundai and Kia's admission of overstated fuel mileage claims could lead to the Environmental Protection Agency policing automaker assertions by performing more audits.
At least, that's what a senior engineer with the government agency said while in Michigan giving a talk, according to a report in Automotive News. What that actually means, however, is still in question. Just ten to 15 percent of new vehicles - something like 150 to 200 cars per year - are rested by the EPA to verify automaker numbers. The EPA's own tests include a "fudge factor" to adjust lab mileage for real-world mileage, and the agency still relies on automakers to submit data for tests that it doesn't have the facilities to perform. How much more auditing can the EPA really expect to do, or perhaps a more relevant question would be how much more accurate could the EPA's audits become?
The price of gasoline, the psychological importance of 40 miles per gallon to a frugal car buyer, an automaker wanting to further justify the price premium of a hybrid, all of these things contribute to fuel economy numbers that insist on creeping upward. Perhaps the senior engineer encapsulated the whole situation best when he said, "Everybody wants a label that tells you exactly what you're going to get, but obviously that's not possible. A good general rule of thumb is that real-world fuel economy is about 20 percent lower than the lab numbers." If the lesson isn't exactly 'buyer beware,' it's at least 'buyer be wary.'