What’s with Ford and these quality studies? Not for the the first time, Ford has commissioned its own study on relative vehicle quality– you know, initial vehicle quality– and come out on top. Ish. You know; a “statistical dead heat.” Or, to be more or less precise, “With a combined average of 1,284 things-gone-wrong (TGW) per 1,000 vehicles during the first three months of ownership, Ford’s domestic brands improved 8 percent versus last year. This performance is statistically equivalent to the 1,250 TGW level of Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus/Scion.” Of course, you have to read all the way to the end, and Google a bit, to see that this PR exercise is Ford-subsidized. “The 2008 model-year GQRS survey, conducted for Ford by RDA Group of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., solicits feedback on vehicle trouble and customer satisfaction from owners of all major makes and models after three months in service.” [JD Powers’ Initial Quality Survey results here.] Anyway, it’s all for one, and One Ford for all: “This is One Ford at its best,” claims Bennie Fowler, Ford group vice president, Global Quality. “It’s taken thousands of people continuously working together with laser-like focus every day to boost vehicle quality for our customers to [just about] the top of the pack.”
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I think all manufacturer’s do this to some extent. The intent of the Ford study is to quickly get data to feed ack into their manufacturing. JD Power data is almost a year late and does not always look at all items that influence initial quality perceptions. GM does a similar type of survey and as a supplier, Delphi does one directly to the final consumer that looks at more detail than JD Power. Typically though, I have seen the Ford studies with the disclaimer that they are internal or requested by Ford.
I am so misguided. I have been driving Japanese cars since, I know I am ancient, “energy crisis” #1 in 1973. I got tired of pumping gas into my V-8 sled when it hit a dollar a gallon. Then I bought a 1974 Toyota Corolla to drive to work.
I had kind of taken it for granted that cars fell apart, rusted to bits and constantly needed tune ups. Then I got the Toyota and it just ran. And ran. And ran. All my buddies laughed at me. But my Toyota ran. And ran. And ran.
Since then every car I have have had has been a Toyota or a Honda. And while my friends and family tried to stay loyal the the Big Three, over the years they go tired of wrenching, fixing, shuttling the car for warranty repairs and getting treated like shit by the dealer. They too, have been won over. It has taken Detroit thirty long years to prove that they make junk but they have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
So Ford has some “quality” stats. Let’s see how good the thing is once the warranty is up. That is the REAL measure of quality.
The one thing that makes me happy about these studies is that they show how close together everyone is on reliability these days (as opposed to 10 or 20 years ago).
So you can buy on things like economy or fun or other factors besides reliabilty. Which is nice.
The real figure is warranty cost as a percentage of sales. In this, Ford has improved. As of early this year they were at 2%. Honda/Toyota are annually at 1.5%. So yes, Ford is improving.
Fords not top dog in quality, but it isn’t bad either. They have a few models in the CR best of the best, none in the worst of the worst. Worst of the worst is mostly GM with a healthy Volkswagen contingent.
As I’ve said before, if you want to buy a domestic car, buy a Ford. Not only do they offer the best quality of a domestic, they also have my vote as The Domestic Most Likely to Survive.
Nuts to initial quality. The seeds are there in the design. You’ll still be angry if your Ford transmission fails prematurely while you’re still paying for the darn thing. Do not buy!
Off topic comment….why do your ads seem to be targeting teens? What is the average age of TTAC reader (43 here BTW).
toxiroach, I have to agree with you as it applies to ‘most’ cars. GM however still does an exceptional job with full-sized trucks and SUV’s.
Ford’s biggest problem these days may indeed be the styling for their cars, which are either ugly or bland depending on the model in question. ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ witch would likely say to Ford’s NA designers, “You have no sense of fashion… no, no, that wasn’t a question.”
It would be interesting to see how much cross-shopping there is between the Ford/Mercury cars and the Hyundai/Kia ones. I’m thinking that there may be nearly as much between those two in the midsized segment as there would be with F/M and Toyota/Honda.
IMHO, initial quality is a useless metric. That is what warranty & lemon laws are for.
I’d LOVE to see quality ratings which measure “MajorThingsThatBreak” between say 36 & 72 months.
Yeah, GM has some fine products, especially in the truck/suv market.
My point was mostly that if you want to buy a domestic, Fords good because its a) pretty solid and b) you’re helping the company that has the best chance to actually get out of this mess (imo). I think GM is pretty much toast, might as well help save what can be saved.
“Yeah, GM has some fine products, especially in the truck/suv market.”
This is what they make the most money on and what generates the biggest bonuses for Lutz and Wagonner.
On a $50k Tahoe, there is $20k in clear profit. And they also break, especially transmission and drive line.
Ford has benefited from its tie up with Mazda. The Fusion is their best product and it is pretty much a Mazda.
Again, these RDA studies of TGW are similar to studies commissioned by all auto manufacturers to get real-time feedback about their vehicles. This study doesn’t contradict anything we’ve seen from CR, JD Power or Strategic Vision lately.
And while the true test is long-term reliability – an area where Ford has made marked improvement – I know that Toyota and Honda are more than happy to use JD Power’s initial quality results in their advertising. It’s a useful measurement when they win – just a passing indicator when they don’t.
Again, if this is truly the truth about cars, the truth is that Ford’s initial quality is currently on par with Toyota and Honda. Frankly, they don’t need this survey to confirm that at this point, they have other third-party sources
(CR is in love with their quality improvements). And initial quality tends to be an indicator of long-term reliability based on past CR and JD Power surveys.
If there is one thing that I stand by, it is the quality levels that Ford has achieved, especially in their newer models. And I do this not actually because I think my Focus is bullet-proof, but because my Civic has been a disaster (and continues to be).
I have had good luck using the Consumer Reports survey as a guide. I’ve reported on all my cars to them for years.
Good points, Robert. Once upon a time, I was a GM man. I bought a new one every three years. They were cheap and when they fell apart, I was trained to pay to fix them. I actually had one GM car that I didn’t have to take to the dealer for a warranty repair. The same car didn’t have anything retail other than wear items. But the other ones had lots.
Since 1974, I have had six cars, four Toyotas and two Hondas. One of the Toyotas had a problem with drive line shimmy they could never find. But the other five Japanese products I have owned have been excellent.
There is a valid reason that American cars have a reputation for being junk. The water supply in your town is not being poisoned to make people buy Japanese. Ford actually makes a reasonably good product these days but the stuff they made from about 1980 to 2000 was absolutely awful.
There is an old saying in the car business: “Once you lose a customer, you’ll never get him back.” I have never worked for Ford but I have for GM and Chrysler. Neither of these companies ever listened to anything their work force ever told them. When dealers were screaming for a good entry level car in 2005, the got the new Tahoe. When service departments told GM that $135 for Cavalier brake pads was driving customers out the door, there was no response. And now we’re in the situation (again) where Detroit is looking for tax payer handouts.
Even Honda makes lemons. Sometimes it happens. The Del Sol Civics leaked like sieves for example. But in my experience, Honda has actually tried to address the problem I was complaining about, where the Big 3 told me “no fault found” so they could wait until the warranty was up and put it to me later with a $1000 biss.
Problem is Ford uses cheap, short lasting parts. I found out the hard way after 20 years of purchases and felt like a real dummy when I finally figured out why my Fords fell apart at 50K…our family is now Honda-Acura…no more Fords. Plus the resale blows…found out the hard way on a Lincoln I paid too much for.
Good point on losing customers, Canucknucklehead. My parents never have forgotten the brand new Mercury Lynx whose engine caught fire in the Sierra Nevadas on a family road trip back in the mid-80s. 100% Toyota now, even though it seems obvious that Ford has improved quality-wise.
It must be the 4th month that the spark plugs cement themselves into the head and the cruise control components set your house on fire.
RobertSD: If there is one thing that I stand by, it is the quality levels that Ford has achieved, especially in their newer models.
Only problem is that today’s Fords are haunted by the ghosts of Fords past. Maybe that’s not fair, but car companies, like people, have to live with the reputation that they have earned.
RobertSD: And I do this not actually because I think my Focus is bullet-proof, but because my Civic has been a disaster (and continues to be).
Our 2005 Focus SE has been bulletproof, too (at 75,000 miles). But then, so has our 2003 Accord EX, at 102,000 miles.
Why is it that I only run across these Honda (and Toyota) lemons on the internet…?
Canucknucklehead: Ford actually makes a reasonably good product these days but the stuff they made from about 1980 to 2000 was absolutely awful.
The trucks and rear-wheel-drive cars were good for the time. The problems were the early Escort (though they were much improved by the late 1980s, and the Mazda-based models were quite good), the Tempo and the first-generation Taurus. Sad part is that those cars had decent styling and features for the time, so they initially sold well, but ended up creating lots of people ready to swear off Ford for good.
The Escort, Tempo and Taurus were the worst automotive abominations that I have ever had the displeasure to lay my eyes on. Ford flogged millions of them and alientated an entire generation of customers with them too. These were customers they never got back and never will.
“Why is it that I only run across these Honda (and Toyota) lemons on the internet…?”
At the last GM store I worked at (before it went belly up) the great majority of customers did not have access to internet. They were either retired or beer belly types.
I’d feel better about this if Toyota’s quality hadn’t nosedived in the past five years. Your 2002 Toyota is probably better than your 2008, quality wise.
One note…based on my experiences with Domestic cars, I’m glad I bought Japanese this time. My Subaru just runs and runs…The only thing wrong was a slight rattle in the dashboard at 20k miles (fixed under warranty, no charge) and an outage in one foglight bulb. Otherwise, bulletproof, given my extreme driving style.
Pete and larryken- are you saying that there is no way that a company can improve quality and reliability? Should a company that sells a car that has a few problems go out of business?
larryken- how many cars in those 20 years? Were thy all bad?
Rix- “nosedived” is a bit of an overstatement IMO.
If you look at all the data Toy remains excellent today. They had two problem launches last year. They have had weak launches before and cleaned them up quickly. CRs annual survey should be out soon, don’t be shocked if the 4wd Tundra and Camry V6 are back in the game.
Very few companies put 90% of their product above the industry average every year like those guys (Honda is the only other that comes to mind, Subie has good years and average).
The biggest drop in Toys percieved quality is all the phanboiz of certain makes that spend all day pretending the end is coming for Toyota so they can feel better about the junk they are emotionally tied too.
Disclaimer: I do not currently own a Toyota and most of their products bore me to tears. But theyare very good at making reliable appliances for the masses.
I think Ford has shown very legitimate improvements the last few years, hope they keep it up for years to come.
Cheerio,
Bunter
Canucknucklehead: The Escort, Tempo and Taurus were the worst automotive abominations that I have ever had the displeasure to lay my eyes on.
I’m not seeing where the Escort and Tempo were any uglier than the domestic and Japanese competition during those years, and the first Taurus (1986) was widely hailed as a design breakthrough, and is still a much more attractive design than its GM and Chrysler competition, not to mention the contemporary Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
It is not that the early Escort, Tempo and Taurus models were ugly, geeber, it is just they they fell apart faster than you could bolt the crap back on them. Ford made a ton o’ money on them, too but they lost customers that they never got back. Ford cheaped the cars out to make more money on them and relied on brand loyalty to move them. GM did exactly the same thing. Problem is what you see a product as awfully bad as a Tempo the chance of selling another one to the customer is about nil.
I also agree with Bunter. Toyota makes a good product for the money. What you see is what you get. I wouldn’t drive one because I like driving but you can’t argue with success: Toyota makes bucket loads of profits. Hell, with its 2007 profits, Toyota could buy Ford and GM several times over. That said, hard core fanboys are doing their best to flame Toyota, which really doesn’t care since said fanboys would never be able to finance one anyway
Speaking as someone whose first automobile was a 1987 Ford Taurus, and whose second automobile was a 1989 Ford Tempo– I can safely say both vehicles covered a total of 550-600,000 miles, and that the Tempo was heads-and-tails above the Taurus in quality, reliability and durability.
The Taurus was built well, bodywise, but the Tempo was the hardiest automobile my family has ever owned, and I’ve owned a w123 2.4 Diesel, and a Volvo 245…
Keep pretending they’re more reliable than the Fords.
Given that so much of Ford’s lineup is relatively new, initial quality is the best gauge to go by. Once there are a statistically significant number of Fusions, new Tauri, Edges, Flexes, Escapes, MKZs, etc, on the road, long term can be judged.
For most new car buyers however, the first 36,000 – 60,000 miles are what matter. After that most people are trading in for something else. I do admit that higher resale values will come from better reliability down the line.
If Ford can pull out higher initial quality though, then long-term reliability shouldn’t be too far off. It takes longer to rebuilt a reputation than to harm one, at least Ford is on the right track.
Ford and quality in the same sentence…it can’t be…
NO Ford product will be as reliable or durable as my Crown Vic. Even their SUVs…
The company I work with has a 2004 Expedition with just over 30K on it. A few weeks ago, it needed a NEW transmission. Another one of our Fords (6.0 SD) needed a new ENGINE at 11K miles. Our brand new Expy…2007 with 10K on the clock, has already been in for trans issues, decals peeling off, excessive wing noise, oil leaks.
Fords are JUNK! STAY FAR AWAY.
Initial Quality surveys are pretty much useless. I’ve personally had serious problems with both Toyotas and Hyundais… and the dealership experience was equally as rotten. I’ve had very good luck with VWs and Volvos, which typically rank very low (though VW dealers also stink, the cars haven’t needed much servicing.) I’ve personally never owned a Ford, but my parents have had several, which I guess they’ve been happy with since they always have at least one in their garage.
Anyhoo… I consider JDP the equivalent of Consumer Reports. It provides some shred of information on which to base a judgement. And there is some value to that I spose. But it hasn’t really been a good gauge for me.
P_71 –
Considering “Expy’s” (I assume Expeditions) don’t even have decals, I find your comment of them peeling off a little bit suspect.
Also, if your company has managed to destroy all of those vehicles with such low mileage, it might be worth looking at who is driving them.
Is it reaching too far back to mention the 1969 Ford Country Squire station wagon with the glued-on faux wood lathing and shelf paper plastered upon the vertical surfaces with a mighty 390 beating under the hood?
The old man bought it used in 1970 solely for the annual trip from California to see the kinfolk in their shantys back in rural Nebraska (granny lived in town but still had an outhouse).
In 1972 he sold it to a neighbor where, a couple months later, a gas leak near the carburetor led to a fire that totaled the conveyance.
Neighbor wanted his money back. The old man told him that’s what he gor for buying a used car and for buying a Ford.
He thereupon jumped into the 1965 VW Bug he had bought new and putted away.
The Bug never caught fire.
The 1972-1/2 Datsun Lil’ Hustler pick-em-up bought new never caught fire, either. It sold for top dollar as a used vehicle.
There’s gotta’ be a moral in there somewhere.
They all make junk but as for the Tempo Topaz mine had 300,000KM before an accident took it out. Even Ford haters new it was a tough little car, Poor ball joints though. My F150 94 has 500,000 KM and is worthless but still going strong. The wife has a 02 focus has had some minor issues but excellent after 345,000KM. My friends with Honda and Toyota have not been any better and none of them have the KM’s that my fords have. Now my Dodge Diesel Pickup was a total disaster and it will do my heart well to see Chrysler bite the dust as I promised them I would do for the terrible treatment. Looks good on you Chrysler.