Bloomberg reports a recent survey that shows Ford's initial quality is at the same level as Toyota's and Honda's. The survey, which ranked problems per 1k vehicles in the first three months of ownership, showed Ford's vehicles scored 1,284 against Toyota's and Honda's "statistically equivalent" 1,250. GM and Chrysler didn't do so well, scoring 1,367 and 1,744 respectively. Of course, Ford will crow about their "achievement" in their "Drive One" ads. What they won't tell you, though, is that Alan Mulally signed the figurative check to RDA Group for performing the survey. That's right folks — Ford bought the survey in which they placed so highly. I vented the editorial spleen when they did the same thing last year, so all I'll say this time is that it didn't seem to help their sales then so I hope they get their money's worth this time.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
What is the first 3 months of a car’s life really going to tell you anyways? People baby the heck out of new cars. 3 months is not even enough time to require an oil change. How about a report that shows quality after owners have started to push the mechanical limits of the cars.
I think Ford paid off the wrong survey… again…
Break out the champagne! It seems like such a no-brainer to get this award, and it is essentially worthless to most people. What is scary are the cars absent from this list! Whether it be actual results or paid off, there are some people who pay mind to this list. What has impressed me is the Fusions continued above average reliability, given it’s made in Mexico. It seems cars manufactured there normally fare below average.
Thanks to whoever put those buttons for changing the type up on the bar. Or I’m blind for never having noticed them before.
I’m not ready to question the validity of this survey. After all, if Ford’s quality was not up to par, they would’ve simply buried the survey results.
quasimondo
I’m not ready to question the validity of this survey. After all, if Ford’s quality was not up to par, they would’ve simply buried the survey results.
On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey. So how can we know it wasn’t biased so Ford would get a high score? After all, they paid for it — why shouldn’t they expect favorable results?
I think you can validate Ford’s survey’s results by looking at the recent Consumer Reports and comparing reliability ratings. Even CR says Ford’s quality has been consistently improving over the last several years.
I drove a Fusion once. It was okay. It didn’t make me want to buy one.
Weeks later I drove a Mazda 6. That was fun. Fit & finish the materials used was much more appealing as well. I considered one of those when I when I bought my 07 Sonata a month ago. The deal breaker for the 6 was insurance. The Mazda would have broke the bank. Needless to say I have a few speeding tickets.
Five and ten years of ownership and how they rate the quality of their vehicle. Those are the surveys people want to read about. Have a survey like that come out yearly for a few years and people will be able to see if there is a trend with the vehicle of their choice.
I know it’s anecdotal, but “initial quality” doesn’t include my focus’s failed alternator at 35,000 miles.
They should change “drive one” to “burn one down.”
maybe they could have ben harper sing for their commercials-ah!
Hang on a minute!
Ford paid for this survey and they STILL didn’t come out on top?!
My goodness! Even Ford can’t bribe properly!
Initial quality is pretty much irrelevant these days – most any manufacturer worth his salt can turn out a car relatively free of defects in the first 3 months. Even JD Power is going away from measuring initial quality, emphasizing more on design and function in their latest iteration.
As turbobeetle mentioned, what customers really care about is how a car will hold up over 5 years and 100,000 miles, long after the warranty period is over.
Frank Williams
On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey. So how can we know it wasn’t biased so Ford would get a high score? After all, they paid for it — why shouldn’t they expect favorable results?
I’m sure it can’t be that difficult to have those questions answered by the RDA Group. If they throw up roadblocks, then you may be on to something.
I’d gladly take a check for $1M from Ford and create my own survey and give them the top spot and not release details or methodology. Make that check payable to…
Oh wait – still don’t park your Ford in the garage due to the cc fires – but they don’t catch fire in the first 3 months so everything’s hunky dory.
Katie,
The BS flags would go up if the survey came back with Ford on top ;)
Oh wait – still don’t park your Ford in the garage due to the cc fires – but they don’t catch fire in the first 3 months so everything’s hunky dory.
After 80K, I had to turn my trusty Explorer in. I never had any issues with the cruise control components, and it never burned up. Bummer.
Do I have to actally keep it in a garage so it can set itself on fire, or will outside parking work just fine?
Orian,
The BS flags are still up with Ford in second place, if Ford had placed lower, we’d have slated them for having poor quality and if Ford came in the middle, they’d have just blended in with all the mediocre marques.
The only thing I can conclude is that Ford paid for a survey which they were going to look bad no matter what the result!
Frank: I fully agree that initial quality is pretty much worthless. The only thing it really measures is if the factory put the beast together in a satisfactory fashion and that there are no obvious enginering or design outages.
But I do think it is a bit over the top to question the validity of the survey. On the face of it—Ford paying for it should raise eyebrows–however the fact that the data is coorberated by TrueDelta, Consumer Reports and JD Power should allow you to chill a bit. Additionally the data has showed year-on-year improvement over the past three. Last, given the intial quality issues Toyota has had with the recent Camry, Avalon, and Tundra launches—-are the survey results really a surprise to anyone ?
In other words—I think all data point to Ford improving quality. If they DIDN’T tout this in their upcoming campaign…I would really question Farley and his team…I’m sure a few that post on this site would do the same.
This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? Give me a Honda any day over a Ford.
Look at a Fusion’s engine compartment. Then, look at an Accord’s. And check out a Camry underhood.
The Fusion? “Stuff it and shut it.”
The Accord? “Let’s take the time to get this right. Underhood aesthetics and placement of common maintenance items are important.”
The Camry? “Stuff it, but before we shut it, put a two-dollar plastic cover over the mess.”
Problems-per-hundred at this level worse than useless, it is misleading. Check http://www.TrueDelta.com for a bunch of writing about this.
I would feel pretty awful buying any car and having a “problem” within the first few years, let alone 3 months. 1.3 or 1.7 problems..both are still bad.
Sure, Ford bought the study…but ALL companies buy all studies they advertise with. They hired an outside supplier to do the research. Good for them. This is a credible way to do research–perhaps the only credible way to do it.
Check out how JDPA works sometime. They create a million categories and then (if your ad people have no good ideas) they will decide to push how you were #1 in some category with one of your vehicles (which is an inevitable consequence of having many categories and only paying attention to rank, not problems-per-hundred magnitude). You then have to pay JDPA for the right to advertise JDPA! JDPA won’t change the process to something more meaningful because doing so would destroy their cash cow.
Don’t yell at a company for hiring third-party research and telling the truth with it. The auto marketing world is corrupt in more subtle ways (like selecting only good data and ignoring the bad). Ford gains credibility with me by putting Honda and Toyota at #1 because that is consistent with what I have seen.
GM loses credibility with me when they call Buick reliable because that is inconsistent with what I have seen.
For what it is worth, the anecdotes I have been getting from Ford owners is consistent with them being fairly high quality. I would actually consider getting a Focus (if only they would bring back the wagon and hatch).
“red dawg :
April 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? Give me a Honda any day over a Ford.”
2 words, “Perception gap”. Out of the domestics, Ford has the best reliability and the best chance of survival. Once (or should I say “if”?) they get their house in order, they’ll actually be a real threat to Toyota and Honda.
With the smaller production numbers, they can concentrate harder on quality and reliability, plus some of their styles are better than Toyota or Honda, which gives Ford the edge (no pun intended) over them (though, the UK Accord/Acura TSX is quite nice).
Like I said, this is provided they can get their house in order (i.e getting rid of certain members of management and letting engineers do what they do best, etc)
P.S It’s no coincidence that the domestic with the best chance of survival, is the one who is emulating the Japanese….
Both Consumer Reports and Mr. Karesh have repeatedly stated that their survey results show dramatic improvements in Ford quality. These independent results lend credence to this study.
Ford has certainly committed (more than) its share of past sins, but everything I’ve seen and read indicates that the quality improvements are real, and the company is separating itself from its domestic brethern when it comes to long-term reliability.
Now, to really get people into the showrooms, it has to work on styling, starting with the slapdash Focus and blandmobile 500/Taurus…
Ford’s quality is highly dependent on model and engine choices.
There are an awful lot of folks in my neck of the woods who would tell you that the best value used car for a given segment is a Ford… and in my opinion they would be right.
The Focus, Five Hundred/Montego, Crown Vic/Marquis, Freestyle, and Ranger are all heavily depreciated; especially when you consider the lower end versions of each. Pricewise they can be anywhere from 3k to 6k cheaper than comparable Toyondas, and virtually all of them can hit the 200k mark with proper care. They represent the classic case of purchasing 80% of a vehicle’s useful life for 40% of the price.
The Fusion/Milan, Mustang, and F150 tend to have better resale values (depending on the model). But I think anyone can make a pretty good case for the fact that the first batch of models are a pretty good choice for those who are simply looking at buying a two to four year old used car and driving it to the proverbial ground. In terms of crunching the numbers and the way most folks perform their daily driving, a late model used Ford can actually be a ‘Best Buy’.
On another note, I still think the Five Hundred should have been given a more upscale version called a Volvo 260; with classic Volvo styling cues to boot. But that’s a subject for another day.
CR and most other surveys bear this out. Even though Ford paid for it, I think the survey is correct. My family owns a ’99 Merc Mystique, a ’98 Ford F-150, and an ’07 Ford Escape. Each coming generation has been more reliable than the last.
To you guys who says Toyotas have no problems, I’d have to point to the Tundra and some other Toyota models and say you’re wrong. Now, Toyotas and Hondas are more reliable, but that’s their thing. Fords (in my humble opinion) have always and always will look better than either Japanese marque.
In short, I’d rather have a Ford Mustang that lasts 150,000 miles than a Toyota Corolla that lasts 400,000. It’s just cooler, and if CR and this survey are any indication, the ‘Stang might just make it up there.
I’m sure Ford has worked on their quality issues, but they still have a lot of lingering lemons from the past haunting them.
The plastic ignition pieces that would randomly cause a car to stall while idling while in traffic and not immediately restart (took almost 10 years for that to get recalled and affected millions of vehicles). The fires in the trucks (happens enough to make the news pretty frequently including a family that lost their house to one going up in flames while parked in the garage a few months ago), the fuel tank in the Panther cars, etc.
Initial quality isn’t going to convince me. It’s going to take years of seeing no problems like they’ve had in the last 20 years before I’m convinced. Oh, and rapid recalls for problems – not waiting 10 years or until forced by the NHSTA or lawsuits to do the recall.
Toyota may have had some quality issues lately, but they don’t wait to recall it when they identify it. That builds trust.
Orian: “Toyota may have had some quality issues lately, but they don’t wait to recall it when they identify it. That builds trust.
Granted Ford has had its issues…but talk to those with the Toyota engine sludge problems….it took Toyota years to admit to that one. Toyota have also lagged on response to the transmission hesitation issue as well
Umterp- true on the sludge, but recent issues that have cropper up, like the cam issue in the Tundra were recalled quickly.
If recent sales numbers are any indication, it seems like a big chunk of Americans are waiting on a new car — possibly to see where gas prices are going, or new technologies. Is anyone seriously considering buying a car designed in the past few years that only gets 22 city and 30 highway to drive for the next FIVE years (2013) and 100K miles? Madness! What if gas is 5 dollars a gallon by 2009? Leasing may be the answer in the short term! Lessees pay alot of attention to initial quality (and your whole experience will be under warranty).
When cars achieve 40mpg, most cars before then (outside of utility trucks and sports cars) will quickly lose their value (unless the car is so cheap, the deal will be worth the gas).
I’ve noticed that whenever someone wants to slate Toyota’s reliability and quality, they ALWAYS bring up the sludge fiasco!
Toyota made a major screw up then, but they haven’t made that same mistake again, have they….?
As Orian points out with the cam issues for the Tundra.
Katie….I think the Toyota transmission hesitation issue is even on a larger scale than the sludge issue. While not as catastrophic as sludge—it is an issue that lingered for years before Toyota addressed it. Bigger picture—my point is that while Ford has had BIG issues and lagged in response—Toyota is not free and clear as Orion had posited.
BTW…can we start the “Can Fields” campaign :)
BerettaGTZ :
… what customers really care about is how a car will hold up over 5 years and 100,000 miles, long after the warranty period is over.
Steven Lang :
Ford’s quality is highly dependent on model and engine choices.
There are an awful lot of folks in my neck of the woods who would tell you that the best value used car for a given segment is a Ford… and in my opinion they would be right.
Agreed on all counts. I had an Aerostar that I should have scrapped at 72k rather than paying for a new A/C condenser and a head gasket job. It took massive infusions of cash to get that beast to 100k. On the other hand, the ’99 Sable that I handed off to my son last year is running like a Swiss watch at 107k and hasn’t needed much work beyond routine maintenance and replacement of wear items.
When I shopped for a used car last summer, the Tauruses and Sables I found were thousands of dollars less than a comparable Accord or Camry. I bought a 2000 Sable with the same powertrain as my ’99 (twin-cam V6 and AX4N automatic trans) and confidently expect it to run past 150k without major repairs.
I’ve noticed that whenever someone wants to slate Toyota’s reliability and quality, they ALWAYS bring up the sludge fiasco!
It’s only because it’s one of the only noteworthy reliability mistakes that Toyota has made, so they have to milk it. It’s just a matter of grasping for straws, pounding on a dead horse in an otherwise empty stable.
umterp85,
You cannot deny that it was Toyota (and Honda) who forced the American automakers to make quality and reliability a priority in cars. Likewise, you cannot deny that Toyota has bred a loyal following. Now whilst there were transmission and sludge issues, the majority of customers keep going back to them, now whether that’s because Toyota treated them well or the problems weren’t as bad as reported, doesn’t matter at this point. The fact is, Toyota have several satisfied customer (I’m one of them).
But compare that with Ford. I’ve lost count how many horror stories I’ve heard about them (again, myself included), but customers aren’t staying with them. So clearly, Toyota is doing something that Ford aren’t and that I think is Orian’s point.
No company is perfect, not even Toyota, but Toyota is still streets ahead of Ford, despite their transmission and sludge issues. Ford burnt alot of customers (and will burn a lot more if they keep using those cruise control modules!) so conversely, they have a LOT of making up to do! A few (paid for) surveys won’t be enough, they need to put their money where there mouth is. Toyota EARNED their reputation for quality and reliability, just like Ford earned their reputation. Ford shouldn’t be telling customers to buy their cars, they should making customers WANT to buy their cars.
Like I said earlier, if Ford can get their house in order, they have a chance at being a real threat at Toyota and Honda. Their reliability seems to be shaping up and once all the production figures are cuts, they’ll have more time to make each car more reliable and better quality. Couple that with their better styling, Ford can make Toyota and Honda’s life hell. But like I said, it’s if they can get their house in order.
As for Mark Fields, he’s done more harm to Ford than good. His Mazda turnaround was suspect (posting records profits after a year? Highly suspect. How much of that turnaround was work by previous management) couple that with the fact that he didn’t turn a profit at PAG AND Ford America, leads me to believe that Mullet Mark needs to be kicked to the kerb! Fast!
PCH 101: It is also fact and TRUTH—isn’t that what this site is all about ?
Just because it is one of the few Toyota quality glitches on a major scale—does that not mean it should be mentioned to correct another posters omission ?
Are you suggesting censorship of any Toyota bad news ? Please do not take this as a flame—it is just an honest question.
Katie: I do not disagree with your post. Your points are valid—-but hyperbole should be corrected with fact….that is what I did. If I ever suggested (or inferred) historic Ford quality could ever be compared to Toyota…that was not my intent…because that in fact would be hyperbolic as well.
I’ve got a friend who used to work for Nissan, and these initial quality surveys apparently have just as much to do with dealer prep as they do with the vehicle itself. For example, someone complained about water spots on the plastic window that covers the speedo. That counts as a ding for initial quality.
Just goes to show that many of these surveys are better used to wipe yourself with than to be taken too seriously.
I do not care if my new car had 1, 2, 3 or 5 easily corrected defects in the first few months as long as the dealer takes care of them quickly and with grace.
I do care about escalating costs post-warranty because I keep my cars and drive them plenty.
The paint which fell off my four year old Taurus still makes me mad even though that was years ago. Funny, I haven’t owned any cars before or after that which had disappearing paint. Ford told me tough luck. I haven’t forgotten, and I haven’t bought another new Ford.
Ford once again demonstrates that they are quite willing to throw money at intangibles. I’m going to run out and buy one of their products because of a survey? How about I talk to friends and colleagues who actually own them for feedback? My Ford from years ago, it initially was fine. So what? Years later all manner of failures and leaks. Goodwill? Sorry sucker, you foot the bill. They honestly expect me to buy from them again? “Fool me once…” – and hey, I KNOW how that line goes.
Just because it is one of the few Toyota quality glitches on a major scale—does that not mean it should be mentioned to correct another posters omission ?
This emphasis on the sludge problem is a bit like comparing your A student who brings home a C on his report card with the juvenile delinquent who routinely brings home report cards full of D’s and F’s.
Both have proven to be fallible, true. But one of them is MUCH MUCH worse than the other. Their failure rates aren’t even close, so it’s completely dishonest and disingenuous to speak of both of them as if they are equally bad, when they aren’t equal at all.
I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest. (Feel free to add a few bon mots about exploding Pintos, melting Vega engine blocks, and some of the other classic failures, while you’re at it.) That would be balanced.
Constantly bringing up the sludge problem frankly makes the domestic supporters look desperate. After all, if you’ve got only one thing to complain about from the last decade of vehicle production, then that tells you that the quality is actually quite high because you can’t come up with other noteworthy examples that are worth complaining about.
Frank Williams :
“On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey…”
Gee that sounds just like Consumer Reports. Go True Delta!
PCH101: Please re-read my prior post to Katie. Thanks in advance for your apology to your flame / hyperbolic response to my position.
BTW—while I lean domestic—you will see a pattern of fact based responses on several threads /topics from me that harpoon and lampoon the domestic 3 when they deserve it….for example…you might want to scroll down my TWAT choices this year, my call for Ford mgmt to can Mark Fields, and my bashing of GM regarding their lack of brand mgmt skills (this is just to name a few).
red dawg:
“This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? *** Give me a Honda any day over a Ford. ***”
You just answered your own question.
Thanks in advance for your apology to your flame / hyperbolic response to my position.
There’s no hyperbole here. Toyota does not have a perfect track record, but in the area of reliability, it has a supremely better one than most of its rivals. As a consumer, I can only play the odds, and it’s obvious who offers better odds.
The sludge references don’t really change those odds much, and they almost invariably attempt to distort these substantial differences between the track records.
I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest. (Feel free to add a few bon mots about exploding Pintos, melting Vega engine blocks, and some of the other classic failures, while you’re at it.) That would be balanced.
So what you want to engage in, essentially, is a pissing contest about who can create the bigger screwup. If you want to haunt Ford about this instead of acknowledge (begrudgingly, if you have to) that they’ve taken steps to improve their defciencies, well I guess there’s no further discussion that can take place.
Pch101: I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest.
I agree with your larger point – people harp on the Toyota sludge issue because…that is about the only major quality issue with Toyotas. And it really wasn’t that widespread. I have yet to run into anyone who experienced this problem. (It pains me to admit it as a Honda fan, but Honda’s problems with automatic transmissions hooked up to V-6 engines were much more widespread.)
However, to be fair here, this is a Ford thread, and the Dexcool and piston-slap problems affected GM vehicles, not Fords.
And, for what it’s worth, the people I know who have bought GM cars in the last 3-4 years have been having more problems with them than people who bought Fords during the same time frame. (Everyone I know who has a GM car with the 3.1, 3.4 or 3.8 V-6 has experienced the intake manifold gasket failure, which, in one case, required an engine rebuild.)
Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).
Now, Ford they could just do something about the styling of the Focus and Taurus…
So what you want to engage in, essentially, is a pissing contest about who can create the bigger fuckup.
There’s no contest. The competition has already been held, and Detroit took the prize. I’m just clarifying the results.
Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).
Agreed. There is plenty of data, aside from this survey referenced here, to support the belief that at least some Ford vehicles, such as the Fusion, are quite reliable. It’s a bit early to say for sure — more time is required to evaluate the long term — but so far, so good.
Ford’s probably just sick of paying double to the resident extortionists (*cough* JD Power *cough*) to get the results then advertise the same ambiguous findings.
Keep in mind “Things Gone Wrong” can include anything from a missing floormat to an inoperative transmission to some uninformed customer taking the car to the dealer to complain the mirrors won’t work, just to find out the switch was in the center toggle position. The sum total of these survey numbers is meaningless unless you weigh the nature and magnitude of the problems.
I doubt Honda and Toyota consider initial quality to be irrelevant. The companies that lead in long-term quality first got their act together in intial quality. It’s a good bet that these Ford vehicles that scored high in initial quality will also score well at 3 years of service. Also, a number of auto companies pay for the quality studies to track their progress. Ford and other companies have contracted with RDA Group for a number of years and these numbers usually track very closely to the J.D. Power numbers that will be released in about a month.
umterp85 – From what I read you really like Fords and have quite a supporting role for them here on TTAC. That’s all in good but Ford has literally killed 1,000s of it’s customers with very dangerous products and tried to hide these problems and lie about them.
For the record – Toyota made due and extended the claim period on the sludge issue – Honda extended transferrable drivetrain warranties to 100k miles (In fact I’ve never read about GM or Ford doing the same for transmission problems and many of their cars had a much higher failure rate).
They need to release the tests / surveys and statistics they used to create this report. I find it funny that Ford came out on top and they were the major sponsor for it in the first place.
I suppose it is inevitable that folks would add two and two to get five. What folks fail to realize is that word of mouth can only go so far, and word of mouth only works one way, so when Ford finally starts building cars that don’t roll over (and I’ve tried very hard to get my Explorer to roll), or spontaneously combust (short of firing a tank round at it, my Explorer has failed to do that as well), nobody’s going to say anyting because that’s what they’re supposed to do in the first place.
So how does Ford get the word out that their cars aren’t as breakable as they were in the past? Hire a firm to suvey them. Who else is going to do the survey, Ford employees?
The idea that the RDA Group fudged the numbers (unless proven otherwise) is ludicrious. They have a reputation to maintain too, and I’m sure if word got around that they’re fudging numbers to cast their customers in a more favorable light they’d be found out in a hurry.
I am with jolo. Let’s see the 5 and 10 year stories. That would likely also answer Quasi’s question as well. The real problem anyone who let’s their quality fall will have is that once people expect failure, then each little problem reinforces that belief.
jaje : “umterp85 – From what I read you really like Fords and have quite a supporting role for them here on TTAC. That’s all in good but Ford has literally killed 1,000s of it’s customers with very dangerous products and tried to hide these problems and lie about them.”
Three points:
1) Other than a 1988 Mustang—I did not own any Fords until my 2005 Mustang and 2007 Lincoln MKX. So I am far from a Ford Fanboy. Between the ’88 Mustang and the 2005 Mustang. I owned a wide range of vehicles including 2 VW’s, 2 BMW’s, 1 Chevy, 1 Honda, 2 Jeeps.
2) I feel the need to support Ford now because I do want at least one domestic auto producer to survive and of the three Ford has clearly earned my support due to better leadership (its no secret I like Mulally) improved quality / design and surprise—a great dealership experience. That said—-when they F up I have pointed it out (eg. not bringing current Euro Focus to market, retaining an empty suit like Fields etc) and will continue to do so. Unlike some—I do not cheer for their demise but rather will be glad if they are able to “make it” by focusing on the right things. Accordingly, I applaud those like Geeber and Katie P. that clearly are not Ford fanboys (girls) but balance their Ford criticism with plaudits when warranted.
3) While recognizing past Ford management has made major mistakes that have resulted in catstophic consequesnces for some (I would like you to send me a link that factually states Ford has killed 1000’s)—I cannot hold the current Ford Management team accountable for those errors and accordingly will not withhold my support. Thats like saying I will not buy Japanese or German products for the genocide they inflicted in WW2. Net, I cannot hold current Japanese and German people or companies that were willing accomplices (eg. BMW, VW, Daimler) accountable for those past mistakes…that would be plain stupid as they had nothing to do with it !
Here’s some links showing statistics just from just the Pinto / Explorer (I’m having trouble finding measurements of deaths associated with the cruise control devices, plastic intake manifolds, ignition switch fires, etc.) NHTSA keeps a lot of data hidden so you have to scrounge around the net for information.
Over a period of 4 years over 9,000 people died mainly due to the Pinto / Town Car – (locating gas tank between rear bumper and rear axles causing it to deform – Ford initially put in a baffle shielding the tank from four sharp bolts to prevent leaking due to likelihood of damage to gas tank in rear end collisions and side impact beams to stop the door from deforming under collision allowing quick escape for occupants – total cost was ($5 per car for the baffle and $15 for the side impact beams) or $20 more per car and this made them much safer to the their customers – they were axed right before production to increase profit percentages and were not retested until later where the infamous memo came about showing the actuarial studies of deaths and payouts to estates compared to adding back in the bladder and side impact beam). Ford didn’t count on the punitive damages of $80 per case – Ford sent out task forces of laywers with NDAs and settlement offers in order to stave off new lawsuits – often visiting the hospitals right after the incident [like they did to a close friends family – my uncle decked that guy upside the head and knocked him out flat]). From Judge Posner’s trial of Ford Pinto – “The result of the Ford Pinto case indicate there is a belief held by most of the public that it is wrong for a corporation to make decisions which may sacrifice the lives of its customers in order to reduce the company’s cost or increase its profits.” http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm
> 300 from Firestone Ford Explorer Rollovers (this does not include other tire brands and rollovers b/c of such. 1/4 of us death toll is from single vehicle rollovers of which it is primarily SUVs). http://www.fordrollover.com/rollover_news.html
You have to consider the corporate culture that breeds these decisions and the makers that allow these to go on. We all know that the Big 2.8 managment lives privileged lives beyond reproach or question – they answer hardly to anyone but their own conscience (or lack thereof). I do applaud Mulally’s efforts and find him a breath of fresh air but in a poisoned atmosphere such as the Big 2.8 he will have little effect. The Accountants will make the decision as their major customers are the shareholders and not those who buy the vehicles.
The simple fact is a manufacturer of anything – especially durable products – can ruin their reputation over night and spend a decade or more recovering that reputation.
Best bet – do like Honda and get it mostly right decade after decade.
Those initial quality tests are be really misleading too. I had two initial quality problems with my Honda CR-V in ’99 when we bought it new. First was a gas strut that held the tailgate glass up. The other was a caster adjustment was that done wrong at the factory. Both were quickly and eagerly fixed by the local dealer (who did not even sell the car to me, was too high on their price by $3K). The car has been flawless since (157K miles now I think). We took care of it and it took care of us. Are either of those items reasons not to buy a car no – not at all but the data doesn’t hint those numbers might really mean.
A X-brand car with a blown engine and then a blown tranny at 5K miles would be counted the same as my car with two very minor mistakes. Besides it’s all under warranty so that changes things for the better. That said I don’t want a car that is going to have to be disassembled multiple times which risks damaging plastics and snap together fasteners which seldom work as well twice as they did the first time at the factory. Plus I never trust the dealer mechanics as much as I do the assembly line guys who put these vehicles together by the thousands. A case in point: my in-laws 2001 Saturn Vue which had the tranny out, the rear suspension out, the exhaust out, and the driveshafts all out within the warranty period chasing a squeak and a drumming sound. Turned out it was a CVT chain that needed adjustment (now making ominous sounds at 81K miles), and a heat shield on the exhaust system rattling at a certain rpm range. At least alot of plastic interior bits weren’t removed and then snapped back together.
There are SO many areas that a car’s reliability can be compromised. Who drives the car and how do they treat it? Who works on a car and whose parts do they use? What is the vehicle used for?
I have found sources for reasonably priced (sometimes cheaper) repair parts for both brands of our cars. In some cases the OEM stuff is cheaper than the aftermarket stuff. I know the OEM stuff lasted ~150K miles, why not use them again? IF I can get OEM at a reasonable price that is (tough to do without the internet).
I used to sell parts over the counter for one of the many FLAPS. After market quality varied WIDELY from white box generic rebuilt parts to full name brand stuff as everyone knows.
Do the quality surveys count any of the cars not dealer maintained? How could they?
Let’s assess the quality of vehicles at 150K miles. That will show people like me how good or bad a vehicle is. That allows owners to test the seats, rattles to develop, a few winters, some summers testing all that is brittle or that leaks, and a generation of little kids crawling all over it’s insides.
So far, the CR-V has been really good. Still wishing for an AWD lock and a 6th gear.
I think a lot of people are being unfair against Ford.
Putting the dodgy survey aside. Ford HAVE made big steps in the reliability and quality department. Umterp85 isn’t saying it’s on par with Toyota and Honda, but let’s give Ford some credit.
Ford still have a long way to go, but at least they’re going in the right direction. The next step is to put their money where their mouth is.
As for management, Ford do have some problems. But Alan Mulally has only been in the job for 18 months and in that time he’s:
Forced management to stop running departments like kingdoms and work with each other.
Killing the toxic corporate culture.
Cut some of their bloated portfolio (more on that later)
and ordered refocus on brands (i.e his insistence on making Lincoln a viable luxury marque)
That’s quite an achievement for 18 months. We can’t blame him for past management mistakes (i.e Pintos blowing up)
However, mistakes have been made. They sold Jaguar off and kept Volvo as their global luxury brand. I think this is a mistake as Volvo is a bit of an empty brand now and Jaguar are finding their feet with the XF.
So, in short, Ford isn’t perfect but it’s heading in the right direction. Now what it needs to do is woo customers back. Don’t tell people to buy your cars, make people WANT to buy your cars…..
I agree Katie and to some point with you umpter85 – I do see progress at Ford and see it moving along better in today’s climate than GM’s glass house gang or Chryslerubus. Mulally seems to be getting on track.
I do see a major failure still is Mercury and Lincoln which are still outlets for mildly rebaged Fords. I do think Ford did the smartest thing and use Mazda and Volvo platforms in order to get much quicker acquianted with modern platforms and engines versus GM.
The problem then becomes – Do I want to buy a Ford or just go over and buy the Mazda or Volvo that it is based off of? With the Ford you get a bigger rebate or free financing for 60 months but those make the car depreciate faster leaving you with negative equity (and Ford is still stuffing the rental channels as they are moving from a direct fleet sales mix to having the dealers move fleets in order to count those shipments to dealers as retail sales).
In the end Ford is still partly privately owned by the Ford family – they are the true influence for the past and the future (maybe they’ve changed)
jaje: The article you cited uses Mother Jones as its reference source. It was Mother Jones that blew the entire Pinto gas tank fiasco wide open in the late 1970s.
The article was flawed in a number of ways, as was documented in a Rutgers Law Review article published in September 1981.
First, the infamous memo does not say what Mother Jones said it did. Ford used that cost calculation because the federal government required to do so, and it referred to ALL cars, not just the Pinto.
Second, the article refers to a bladder that could have made the gas tank safer, and castigates Ford for not using it. One problem – I don’t recall ANY car maker using this type of bladder in gas tanks at that time. So why should Ford be singled out for not using it?
Third, the number of actual fire deaths resulting from gas tank ruptures in Pintos was wildly overestimated by Mother Jones. The final tally was not out of line with other small cars of that time period. The Pinto’s overall safety record, when measured in deaths per number of vehicles on the road, was average for ALL types of fatalities, and only slightly higher than average for fire-related fatalities.
The Pinto was designed and engineered when Detroit could make a car light and inexpensive, or sturdy, heavy and inexpensive. Light, strong and inexpensive just weren’t in the vocabulary at that time. Ford chose the former, because it needed the Pinto to have a low price and get good gas mileage (for the time).
It is worth noting that, as the 1970s wore on, the Pinto became progressively heavier as Ford beefed up the ENTIRE structure.
But this was hardly a problem unique to Ford among the domestics. Note that AMC chopped the back end off the Hornet to create the Gremlin because it didn’t have enough money to build a completely new subcompact. The result was a nose-heavy, overweight dog with no traction, because there was no weight over the drive wheels! But AMC did not have the skill or the money to build a truly light, efficient and strong small car. Detroit’s small-car engineering skills were deficient in the late 1960s.
The allegation that the Panther cars have unsafe gas tanks does not hold water when one looks at the details of the accidents. Several of the accidents involved Crown Victoria police cars being hit from behind by vehicles traveling at 70+ mph. There are precious few vehicles that can withstand that type of impact. In many cases the reason the victim lived to suffer from serious burns is because, in other vehicles, he or she would have been killed instantly in such a violent collision. There is no point in worrying about serious burns when the occupants were killed by the initial collision.
Your link regarding the Ford Explorer takes us to a personal injury law firm, which is hardly an impartial source of information. I note that, in the real world, Car & Driver was unable to make an Explorer roll after it deliberately blew out the tires. The SUV came to a stop – upright on all four tires – on its own.
Some of the website’s “articles” are misleading and employ typical legal doubletalk. For example, it says that, in regards to roof strength:
“…Ford engineering supervisor Christopher Brewer stated in a 2003 deposition that Ford didn’t make changes because the U.S. government didn’t require any.”
Translation – the Explorer met the government’s roof strength standards. If the government deemed the Explorer’s roof strength acceptable, one wonders why Ford should be required to spend extra money to make very expensive structural changes.
I’m not denying that Ford has had (very serious) problems. A company doesn’t lose market share and gush red ink when it is building vehicles that people want. Part of the reason that people don’t want Fords is because, during the 1990s and early 21st century, it built too many vehicles with subpar reliability (particularly the Taurus/Sable and Windstar with the awful 3.8 V-6 and guaranteed-to-grenade automatic transmission).
It failed to keep former winners up-to-date (first Taurus, Focus).
The company put far too many eggs in the light-truck basket, which is now coming back to bite it on the butt as gasoline races towards $4 a gallon.
But let’s keep the criticism in perspective, please. I’m not inclined to trust personal injury law firms or Mother Jones when it comes to finding out The Truth About Various Fords.
Ford looks like they’ve made quality improvements. It’s just beyone irksome that the fanboys get all bent out of shape over a few recent surveys and act like badly burned customers owe it to Ford to come back.
Screw that. Personal experience, the anectdotal experience of friends and acquaintances and the broad industry surveys and reports all point to a quality and reliability lead for Toyota and Honda. My Toyotas have treated me well (as has the dealer) and I see no reason to switch.
And it’s hard to believe there’s anything to the much ballyhooed “sludge” issue. I know at least 8 people with that engine – I have one, too – and no one I know has had any troule at all. This contrasts markedly with the number of people I know who were stranded on vacations by blown Ford transmissions or engines.
KixStart: My Toyotas have treated me well (as has the dealer) and I see no reason to switch.
Once customers are gone, it is extremely difficult to win them back, especially if they are satisfied with their current vehicle.
There are lots of very satisfied Honda and Toyota owners, and unless the vehicles start self-destructing just after the warranty ends, they aren’t going to be swayed by one or two good survey results, even from independent sources (such as Consumer Reports).
Ford, GM and Chrysler have no one but themselves to blame for their current predicament. Ford is making improvements, but changing customer perceptions will take a long time.
Geeber: You hit the nail on the head.
Kixstart: I do not think Ford is planning on mega Toyota-Honda owner conversion now—-if they did they would be dreaming. What I think they are hoping for is to retain current Ford owners , pick off a few conquest conversions to stabilize market share, and start changing perceptions….I think this is a worthy short term goal.
Longer term (3-5 years)—if they are able to continue their quality improvements and design attractive and differentiated vehicles—-then and only then—can they reasonably expect to ask for the business of Toyota and Honda owners and expect consideration and trial.
The Fusion is a Mazda. The 500/Taurus is a Volvo.
The F150 and Mustang are pretty crude and not very complicated.
If Ford can’t get the F150 & Mustang right then there is no hope for them. NO Way is Ford anywhere near Toyota or Honda in quality! I don’t care who pays or participates in the study.
VW’s 1.8T has a larger sludge problem than Toyota.
I know because I have one! Though my car is not sludged I am well aware of the problem. VW is not #1 or threating GM or Ford so the haters on the web give them a “free pass”.
Look at a Fusion’s engine compartment. Then, look at an Accord’s. And check out a Camry underhood.
Actually, this is one area where GM does really well. From the horror show of the early eighties, today’s GM product has a very nicely detailed engine compartment. That Fusion? Note how many items have added insulation, heat shields, etc. Makes me wonder if these parts are going to age well. For those who really put on high mileage or keep them for many years I would be concerned…
For the record – Toyota made due and extended the claim period on the sludge issue – Honda extended transferrable drivetrain warranties to 100k miles (In fact I’ve never read about GM or Ford doing the same for transmission problems and many of their cars had a much higher failure rate).
Toyota did make good on my brother’s sludge induced engine failure, but root canal would have been easier. Since his was one of the early failures, they refused to accept any culpability, instead blaming it on poor maintenance. Seems my brother had his oil changes elsewhere, not at the Stealership.
I am with jolo. Let’s see the 5 and 10 year stories. That would likely also answer Quasi’s question as well. The real problem anyone who let’s their quality fall will have is that once people expect failure, then each little problem reinforces that belief.
I use a 92 Sable to go to the railroad station. 209K miles, and yes, some poor paint. Third ignition switch, a couple of TFI modules, but car has been very reliable. Trans replaced at 160K. Many Ford products make excellent used car values in part because of perceived poor quality. A used Toyota is probably more reliable over the long haul, but the difference in purchase price of the used vehicle will more than pay for a few extra repairs. Check on eBay for used cars. You will see just as many used Fords with high mileage for sale as Toyotas.
BTW, what’s with the Pinto crap? 35 years in the auto industry might as well be the Jurassic Period. Better bring up the rust buckets from Japan, crappy Honda A/C’s and head gasket failures (mid 80’s Civics). We all could go on with this but the pattern is this: The Japanese have overall a better reliability record, but overall long term (150K on up) durability advantage is not so clear. Yes there are notable exceptions. Today the reliability gap is much closer than it used to be. Bigger differences today would be quality of interiors and refinement. The Japanese still are better here then the Americans.
geeber – finding any website that includes the information is very difficult. Unfortunately the mother jones and the rollover lawyer websites provide a lot of information some fact and some exaggerated information. I simply cannot find a good “unbiased” source of information.
So you think Ford “paid” for the results? Who do you think pays for the JD Power survey? JD Power doesn’t give it away. Also, regarding manipulation of data, I didn’t see anything about the secret (and illegal) warranties that Japan is so famous for… The dealer offers you a free oil change and then fixes some other problems without your knowledge. You are non the wiser, and you are happy that the dealer gave you a free oil change. I also didn’t hear anything about the major problems with the new Tundra. What about the engine failures and the body damage from driving the truck? The tailgate, the rear quarter panels, and the back panel get damaged from driving on bumpy roads. If you want an appliance, but a Toyota. The economic effects are a lot bigger than factory jobs in Detroit or Kentucky. The profits for Japan, Inc. go back to Japan. They invest little in this country, and their philanthropy is miniscule.