GM and Ford Channel Toyota to Beat Toyota

[rkisler]

This is a major article from today's NYT Business section on quality.

 

NYT Article

 

The article concentrates on quality efforts but, in typical NYT fashion, is filled with some facts and a fair amount of faint praise and outright bullshit.

 

In particular, the quotes from an academic that indicates that Toyota's quality was "derided" by U.S. automakers is pure BS. And there are more than a few remarks that are total hearsay of quality horror stories which probably have little basis in fact.

 

And, when they show the Consumer Reports chart of the ranking by brand (where Ford scores 11th), the authors imply it is a quality ranking. It isn't. It's a simple graph with quality on one axis and CR's opinion on how well they liked the cars on the other axis. And they neglect to mention that David Champion of CR is a total jackass. (To get additional charts, click on the one chart that is shown).

 

But...there is some good stuff in here also and some positive comments about Ford and GM. One of the most important quotes in my opinion is the following:

 

“The way carmakers develop reputations is in driveways all across the country, when neighbors come by for a sniff of a new vehicle you just bought,” says James Bell, executive market analyst at Kelley Blue Book, which tracks the value of used cars.

 

“For years, buyers of American cars just said, ‘I got a great deal on this.’ They’re starting to say positive things that have nothing to do with price, which is what will make the perception gap go away.”

 

I totally agree that it's all about consumers feeling good about the expensive purchase of an automobile. And a big part of this feeling good has to do with reinforcement from friends and neighbors. This is where Ford in particular has a chance to succeed. A dowdy Toyota Corolla with a 4-speed auto and a twist beam rear suspension will look almost Soviet era parked next to a new Focus in the neighborhood.

[RichardJensen]

They wanted just the right amount of quality, just the right amount of styling

This is, infamously, the attitude of one Robert Lutz.

 

the fixes prompted by the recalls have already been made

Too bad they don't solve the underlying problem.

 

An incredibly annoying article.

[mustang84isu]

I stopped reading after this comment

 

“Ford has reliability, but its products aren’t as good,” Mr. Champion summarizes. “G.M. cars are good but not as reliable. If you could somehow merge these companies together, you would have something.”

 

What defines "good"?

[Ron W.]

I stopped reading after this comment

 

“Ford has reliability, but its products aren’t as good,” Mr. Champion summarizes. “G.M. cars are good but not as reliable. If you could somehow merge these companies together, you would have something.”

 

What defines "good"?

 

My opinion, reliability.

[SVT_MAN]

I can't believe that Consumer Reports is saying Ford's vehicles are not as good as GM's but are more reliable. If you ask the general, public, I think they would disagree that Fords aren't as good.

[suv_guy_19]

Ford products aren't as good as GM products...on what planet? Ford probably has the best product lineup in the business.

[rkisler]

My opinion, reliability.

 

No, that's not what CR is saying. And that's why I called Champion a jackass. What he (and the reviewers at CR) are saying is that Ford's quality might be better than Toyota or Honda, but their cars "arent' as good". What he's referring to is not the quality score, but CR's numerical score when they test vehicles.

 

I have more than a few problems with CR's testing. The biggest problem I have is that their scoring system is "propietary", so they don't tell you how they ranked individual elements of their testing. Sorry, but if they don't tell me how they got the score, then I can't determine if it has any credibility.

 

I also have a problem with CR's claim that because they don't accept advertising, they are therefore not biased. BS. We're all biased. And I'm going to guess if we looked in their parking lot, we wouldn't see so many Fords. So when you test that Ford, you have a built-in predisposition on what you think the vehicle is going to be like. And if that predisposition is negative (very likely, since we all know the best cars come from Asia and Germany), then the score is likely to be lower. I have seen this first hand inside Ford when, on competitive drives, there was a natural bias to downplay competitors (much to Ford's disadvantage IMO).

 

I have a problem with CR's quality reporting. I will say it provides more data that consumers can get from other sources, but it is based on reader input. There is no way that CR's readers are representative of the population.

 

So, CR's brand ranking, based on their test score and quality reporting from their subscribers, is very suspect.

 

But...it gets a lot of attention in a society where everyone wants everything easy so they go for the "Morningstar" rating.

 

And just as there is a lag effect on brand perception from the public, I think there will be a lag in CR's quality reporting and testing scores. When the public starts recognizing how good Ford's upcoming products are, it will harder for CR to hold the line on their reporting and scoring as they will be out of step.

 

And it will be harder for idiot Champion to continue to defend Toyota come hell or high water.

[RichardJensen]

David Champion damned himself with his offhand remark about how 'troubling' it was that a Nissan plant had the worst quality in the United States.

 

---

 

Of course, he used to WORK for Nissan, so...........

 

---

 

BTW: all 'scoring' systems are bunkum and tummyrot. IMO. If you want to give numbers, give raw data. If you want to give opinions, give opinions. Don't insult us by assigning numbers to your opinions and pretending it matters. This isn't pairs figure skating.

[aneekr]

I stopped reading after this comment

 

Ford has reliability, but its products aren’t as good,” Mr. Champion summarizes. “G.M. cars are good but not as reliable. If you could somehow merge these companies together, you would have something.”

 

What defines "good"?

I'm with you mustang84isu. Mr. Champion's definition of "good" certainly abolishes all convention, as it contradicts CR's own data! I'm looking at p. 15 of the April 2010 Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue. Ford's average test score (not reliability rating) is 66; GM's is 65.

 

Mr. Champion is correct that "if you could somehow merge these companies together, you would have something"- if by "something" he's referring to a unmanageable quagmire.