Ford/Lincoln Hit Bottom In Reliability Survey

[OHV 16V]

Obviously, MFT is the big culprit, but they also cite more problems than normal with the Explorer, Fiesta and Focus outside of MFT. Also, note that the new Escape, Fusion and MKZ aren't included due to their being redesigned this year. I can't imagine the new Escape is going to help these ratings due to all of the recalls...

 

http://www.detroitne...iability-survey

 

This article has some other minor tidbits..

 

http://www.autonews....liability-study

Edited October 29, 2012 by OHV 16V

[RichardJensen]

Loss of solid reliability data from the Fusion & MKZ probably contributed.

 

Would be more interested in seeing the system-level breakdown that CU provides, than these numbers.

[aneekr]

Would be more interested in seeing the system-level breakdown that CU provides, than these numbers.

 

Detailed information will be available in the latest issue of Consumer Union's Best & Worst New Cars, which is typically available on newsstands in mid to late November.

[akirby]

This is concerning. Most of the problems aren't serious but there do seem to be a lot more of them on the newer products. I'm sure the drive to cut costs and increase production efficiency are somewhat to blame. But I hope they'll take a step back now that the profits are solid and get a handle on these problems.

[timmm55]

It isn't all MFT. I was afraid this would happen with One Ford implementing the Euro cars. They have had a pretty mediocre track record.

[RichardJensen]

The results aren't important.

 

What is important is what Ford does about the results.

[aneekr]

This is concerning. Most of the problems aren't serious but there do seem to be a lot more of them on the newer products. I'm sure the drive to cut costs and increase production efficiency are somewhat to blame. But I hope they'll take a step back now that the profits are solid and get a handle on these problems.

 

Well put, akirby. Based on the 2012 JD Power IQS results released this summer (which typically align with those from Consumer Reports' reliability survey), the problems that afflict redesigned Fords like the Explorer, Fiesta, and Focus mentioned in the article encompass many areas and systems - powertrain, body/chassis, interior components, and electronics.

 

Hopefully resolving its current quality woes is a top priority for Ford management, because the future of the company is contingent upon doing so.

[akirby]

Eliminating models just because they're new is silly if you're trying to get an overall picture of reliability for an entire mfr. Fusion, MKZ and Escape are probably some of the highest rated vehicles. I can understand not giving them an individual recommendation if they're totally new but to leave them out altogether seems wrong.

 

By the same token, what if Ford had 3 or 4 bottom dwellers that they had just redesigned - would CR leave them out, too - resulting in an artificially high rating? Especially if you're counting number of vehicles in each category.

 

Also - if 60% of vehicles were below average then doesn't that mean 40% are above average? Or is Average a wide range of values as opposed to a single point?

[aneekr]

Also - if 60% of vehicles were below average then doesn't that mean 40% are above average? Or is Average a wide range of values as opposed to a single point?

 

The director of automotive testing at Consumer Reports stated that no Ford or Lincoln branded vehicles placed above average.

 

In Consumer Reports' Automotive Reliability Survey, a designation of 'average' does indeed indicate a range of values. In previous years, any vehicle with a problem rate within 20% above or below the mean for all vehicles was considered 'average'. I don't know what this represents in terms of actual standard deviations from the mean.

 

Just to provide an idea, here's a graphic of the 2010 CR Reliability Survey results depicting the overall range of values:

 

Edited October 29, 2012 by aneekr

[OHV 16V]

Eliminating models just because they're new is silly if you're trying to get an overall picture of reliability for an entire mfr. Fusion, MKZ and Escape are probably some of the highest rated vehicles. I can understand not giving them an individual recommendation if they're totally new but to leave them out altogether seems wrong.

 

By the same token, what if Ford had 3 or 4 bottom dwellers that they had just redesigned - would CR leave them out, too - resulting in an artificially high rating? Especially if you're counting number of vehicles in each category.

 

Also - if 60% of vehicles were below average then doesn't that mean 40% are above average? Or is Average a wide range of values as opposed to a single point?

 

It makes sense though, you don't have enough data on newly-redesigned vehicles to have accurate information. And yes, if Ford had three or four bottom-dwellers that were fresh-off redesign, they would still be left out.

[jasonj80]

A lot of this is the fact that Ford of late has pushed technology in its cars, from engines and transmissions to infotainment. When you take the lead in the industry you are first but being first has a lot of problems as you are the beta tester. You also have to make sure your marketing hype isn't creating a false perception in the market. That being said CR needs to release the actually numbers -- I want to see number of vehicles surveyed, and the total number for the segment. On problems per vehicle out of 100 a Corrolla could have 88, a Civic 89, a Cruse, 90, and a Focus 91. Focus would be the least reliable in the metrics CR uses when they had a total of 3000 people in that whole class of vehicles, then continue to break it down to year/model that filled out their survey and you'd be lucky to have 100 people from each car fill out that survey. That is why CR wont post that number -- if they did their survey would become a joke as the number of people would be so small to total vehicles sold and on the road. If CR wanted true metrics they would let EVERYONE fill out the survey then just allow the data shown for subscribers.

 

All of that being said I do think that CR brings something to the table different that the usual MT/C&D/R&T reviews.

[Bob Rosadini]

Hmmmn- I wonder how this will look on Mark's appraisal? Today's WSJ headlines.."Ford Caps Turnaround Effort"...."Sale of Auto-Parts Business Marks End of US Restructuring Project Led by Possible Mulally Successor". Isn't this the second year in a row we have been reading about bad ratings associated with MFT? I would hope the board cares mopre about product quality and public perception than unloading a parts plant.

 

To answer Mr. Jensen's question (what have they done..?) apparently not much. My 2010 SHO has 43,000 miles and hasn't been back to the dealer since new. Of course, do I get frustrated yelling at the "MYsync" lady? Yes. Bad enough to go back to the dealer? No.

[Deanh]

A lot of this is the fact that Ford of late has pushed technology in its cars, from engines and transmissions to infotainment. When you take the lead in the industry you are first but being first has a lot of problems as you are the beta tester. You also have to make sure your marketing hype isn't creating a false perception in the market. That being said CR needs to release the actually numbers -- I want to see number of vehicles surveyed, and the total number for the segment. On problems per vehicle out of 100 a Corrolla could have 88, a Civic 89, a Cruse, 90, and a Focus 91. Focus would be the least reliable in the metrics CR uses when they had a total of 3000 people in that whole class of vehicles, then continue to break it down to year/model that filled out their survey and you'd be lucky to have 100 people from each car fill out that survey. That is why CR wont post that number -- if they did their survey would become a joke as the number of people would be so small to total vehicles sold and on the road. If CR wanted true metrics they would let EVERYONE fill out the survey then just allow the data shown for subscribers.

 

All of that being said I do think that CR brings something to the table different that the usual MT/C&D/R&T reviews.

BINGO...the simpler the car the less chance of "issues".....

[RichardJensen]

Am I to understand that you haven't updated MFT at all since you bought your vehicle?

 

Because if that's the case, you're in no position to say that Ford hasn't done much about MFT.

[twintornados]

It's all BORG's fault....

[jpd80]

Unlike a quality report, this feedback highlights customer concerns,

customers feel that MFT is hard to use, has glitches and also have lingering concerns about past Powershift issues.

 

As Richard says, this is more about how Ford responds to these issues, the 2012 survey is a snapshot only and it is highly likely that

Ford's ratings could rise just as quickly once customer concerns are lessened. These are simple quantifiable issues that can be fixed

by software upgrades, not only in new vehicles but all existing ones too.

 

Not meaning to dismiss the survey but it has to bee seen in the right light, not the screaming headline,

Customers have issues with MFT and Powershift, either real or imagined those concerns can be easily addressed.

Edited October 29, 2012 by jpd80

[mackinaw]

Not good news at all.

 

Ford is fortunate that Hurricane Sandy will be getting all the headlines for the next few days. With 50 million people concentrating on the weather, not many will be be paying attention to the CR quality rankings.

[akirby]

It makes sense though, you don't have enough data on newly-redesigned vehicles to have accurate information. And yes, if Ford had three or four bottom-dwellers that were fresh-off redesign, they would still be left out.

 

But don't you agree that skews the results in both cases?

[ausrutherford]

These Luddites also say the iPhone isnt that great...and yet everyone buys them.

[aneekr]

These Luddites also say the iPhone isnt that great...and yet everyone buys them.

 

Unlike the Luddites, Consumer Reports has consistently ranked the iPhone at or very near the top of smartphone ratings it has conducted in the past four years. One exception: the iPhone 4 failed to garner a 'Recommended' rating from the magazine due to a design defect in that particular model.

[OHV 16V]

But don't you agree that skews the results in both cases?

 

Sure do. I don't like it, because I see your point on how the Fusion could help bolster Ford's numbers a bit, but that's their testing regimen. And every manufacturer supposedly is held to that, so therefore they all technically have redesigned models that don't get figured in. LOL, it's CR, no one said the testing methods were logical.

[Deanh]

 

 

But don't you agree that skews the results in both cases?

yet Honda and Toyota get a hall pass on newly released models based on past history....AHEM!

[RichardJensen]

Not on this segment. This is owner reported reliability.

[aneekr]

yet Honda and Toyota get a hall pass on newly released models based on past history....AHEM!

 

CR no longer does this for all Honda and Toyota products. In the past, all tested vehicles from both automakers have always scored at least average in the magazine's Reliability Survey. In recent years, both Honda and Toyota have had a few models that had below average reliability (e.g., 2007 Camry V6, 2011 Odyssey), hence the change in procedure.

[Deanh]

Not on this segment. This is owner reported reliability.

gotcha....in that case I would point a certain finger in the direction of something I have become quite accustomed to regarding new ownership. Impatience and laziness....It has come to my attention, that rather than pick up the manual and read the intracacies of ones new vehicle, that people would rather swing by the dealership....and not even the one where the vehicle was purchased....and, to top it off....SEVERAL TIMES......blows my mind.