GM’s North American VP for quality, Rick Spina, latches on to the latest JD Power IQS with a blog post at Fastlane titled “What Quality Gap?” and a webchat inviting every pissed-off GM owner to bitch about their quality problems.
For all the naysayers out there … get this … in the J.D. Power & Associates 2009 Initial Quality Study, Cadillac, our flagship brand, improved by 19 percent since last year’s study and comes in third, just behind Lexus and Porsche. That’s pretty darn good considering brands typically improve around 5 percent a year. And Chevy, our volume leader, eliminates the quality gap to join company with very competitive import brands like Honda and Toyota. Simply put, the quality gap is history.
Oh really?
The obvious retort is that “initial quality” is a meaningless category and that JDP tends to favor firms that hire it for consulting duties. And the point comes up early in the Spina-hosted webchat: “When will GM stop using ‘Initial quality’ as a benchmark for their vehicles? How about ‘Best long term reliability and quality,'” asks commenter “Nate.”
We’re never going to stop because it’s one important measure, but using initial quality is not our only measure of quality. Just several months ago, we had good response to rolling out a JD Power dependability study; customer feedback on vehicles that are 3-years-old. In fact, one of our four core brands Buick was atop the study. We pay just as much attention to long term dependability as we do initial quality.
Besides, isn’t quality an issue only in the mind of the beholder? Spina spins it that way.
personally I don’t see door closing sound as highly important, but I respect that it’s an important indicator to you and other customers, so we work hard on it. What’s important to you is important to us.
Which contrasts nicely with GM’s “our products are desireable, dammit” talking points. Lacking an internal compass to distinguish what constitutes a good door-closing sound, or other desireable qualities, GM has no choice but paint itself as a good listener. As if focus group mania hadn’t done enough damage ’round Ren Cen way in the past. Besides, GM’s long history of questionable product quality isn’t the only thing that makes consumers wary of the General.
By lavishing PR praise on decades of sub-par products, GM has lost the credibility necessary to simply tell consumers that quality has improved. Only a spontaneous rediscovery of GM’s product desirability will be enough to change consumer opinion. And if that were happening, GM would be able to point to sales, rather than a meaningless “initial quality” survey.
For someone like me, three years is still short-term dependability!
Ask me after eight years…
The quality gap is history? They acknowledge there actually was a gap? For 20 years they denied it and said it was “perception”. To quote the church lady, “how conveen- yent!”
Cadillac’s large gain can probably all be attributed to the CTS. Based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey, the CTS had a very high problem rate in its first year. We don’t have many responses for the 2009s yet, but they appear to require hardly any repairs.
Conversely, Jaguar’s drop from 9th place to 29th can probably be attributed to the XF.
TrueDelta provides scores for individual models, not just brands, and closely tracks them from new to 10+ years old. Dean isn’t alone. More and more people are expecting cars to go 100k and even 120k miles without a major repair.
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php
GM’s problem is that I still have the wrong perception:
A 19 percent improvement in one year?
Sweet bleeding Houlihan!
Things were so bad that it was possible to make a 19 percent improvement in one year?
Lokkii:
See my comment above yours.
All this talk of gaps and “closing the gap” reminds me of the Mine Shaft Gap in Dr Strangelove.
That, at least, made more sense than the utterings of GM’s spinmeisters.
There might be something to the IQS hype.
Suzuki stopped selling Korean shit boxes and stretched Equinoxes in ’09.
They skyrocketed up this time, only on Japanese product results.
Whoa, did you just assert that JD Power provides favorable survey results to those that pay for their consulting services?
The obvious retort is that “initial quality” is a meaningless category and that JDP tends to favor firms that hire it for consulting duties.
That is an extremely cavalier and irresponsible claim – and I don’t perceive any sarcasm in it. But maybe this article was posted as an editorial/opinion where you are merely presenting an unnamed source’s notion that believes JD Powers gets bought out. While you’re working at that conspiracy-theory editorial, you can also assert that Google moves business websites up up in their search results if that company were to pay for advertising through Google’s ad services.
Anyone who has actually worked with the full JD Power result sets knows that these surveys are just that – surveys. You can fault the validity of questions, fundamental approach of how data is obtained and aggregate, and even their final PR releases they send over the wire to flaunt their survey. But your statements about paid-for-results are basically a Lutz-ism that shows how you’re letting some opinions override your rational mind.
There is no other tool/resource out there that allows an automaker to see how they stack up against the competition and against themselves year over year. True Delta may help with a customer making a purchase, but TD does little for any engineer wanting to compare data on a feature and component level.
JD Power is basically useless for an end consumer – but remains extremely valuable for the automaker. The continuous bashing of JD Power versus True Delta is absurd since they accomplish different things.
No, I don’t work for JD Power and I get zero benefit from typing this. But I do hope you guys realize that your “belief in the truth” is taking a back seat when you guys comment these types of “news articles” with absurd claims. I don’t expect Karesh to favor JD Power, but I do expect TTAC to see both sides of the coin.
JD Power is basically useless for an end consumer – but remains extremely valuable for the automaker.
In all seriousness, how? All I can tell is JD Power lets an automaker crow about “quality” and pawn it off as something done by a nominally independent entity ala Consumer Reports.
…but I do expect TTAC to see both sides of the coin.
LOL, lemme know when that happens.
I recently bought a 2006 Escalade. I like it. Fun car. But there are some issues going on with it where, head to head with my wife’s 2003 X5, the Cadillac is clearly inferior. Granted, it is a luxury SUV that can competently tow a 30′ travel-trailer. But when I pull up next to a Chevy and it has the same mirrors, the same basic dash, I wonder why an original purchaser would have paid $50k+ for a rebadged Tahoe. The interior trim level leaves a lot to be desired (the way the buttons wear on the steering wheel and radio controls, for example – or the wide and uneven gap between the front bumper and the headlights – improved in the 2007 model). If I didn’t need to tow, I’d be in a 330iX or 530iX.
I just can’t see why someone would pay the premium for a Cadillac Escalade when they could get a nice German alternative with such better engineering, unless they had very narrow and specific needs.
It’s Different This Time. We Promise.
Cadillac’s large gain can probably all be attributed to the CTS. Based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey, the CTS had a very high problem rate in its first year. We don’t have many responses for the 2009s yet, but they appear to require hardly any repairs.
1. Michael – Fair enough point, but just as one year’s BAD data may not be representative, one year’s GOOD data may not be representative either.
As for J.D. Powers, it’s just a classic case of “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”.
J.D. Power doesn’t lie… I believe that their data is credible and accurate. It’s just that you have to be careful to examine it for spin –
“Best car in it’s class!”*
* = Class composed of all vehicles with pink radio “power on” knobs”
Grog,
If you were an automaker who was willing to pay money to JD Power (I don’t believe that all OEMs pay for access), you’ll be able to access their full data result set for every single question that they asked of all their survey respondents.
Do you really believe that JD Power results sent to an OEM are just some generic descending-length bar graphs and some bullet points? JD Power gives you data about your vehicles versus the competition and against yourself (over time). And you get access to their entire survey data. No one else is doing this – or even attempts to do it. JD Power owns the market on this one.
You would see what Audi Q7, Volvo XC90, Ford Flex, Honda Accord, Kia Spectra drivers responded to regarding the question of whether or not they liked the user interface of cruise control stalk. And you’d be able to see a separate response list for a question asking if they ever had a problem with the cruise control system failing to function. And of course, if you bought the survey results 2 years in a row, you’d be able to see if last year’s drivers of your cars had any better/worse responses for cruise control friendliness (especially important if you decided to change cruise control layout on your car over a new model offering)
Sure, you as a customer really don’t care – because you just want the system to work. But how could an OEM ever expect to know how they stack up against the competition without JD Power? How would they know which areas to improve? Can they log onto TrueDelta.com and get knowledge at a component level? Can you call up Consumer Reports and get at the sample size of their data by survey-question? Can you shake the magic-8-ball and just “get the right answer” out of thin air?
Sure, make fun of their lumping of “perceived design goodness” in with the “actual problems” metric on the PR Newswire release. But if you’re an automaker, you see the data cut up many ways so you can see defects quite plainly without getting de-railed.
I really hope no one here is judging the value of JD Power based on topical press releases and comments on GM Fastlane.
May I ask why the goal was to close the gap – shouldn’t the goal be to reverse the gap?
That’s what it would take for GM to thrive. If Lexus has .89 defects per 100 cars then the goal of Cadillac should be .44 defects. If a five year old Camry has 3.2 problems per 100 cars a 3 year old Malibu should have 1.6.
GM shouldn’t be “just as good as a Toyota” the should be significantly better!
holydonut:
If I’ve had any impact on TTAC’s opinion of J.D. Power, it’s to tone it down.
That said, auto makers already have all of the data they need at the feature and component level–in their warranty claims data. Nissan recently stopped buying J.D. Power’s data for this reason.
The data are also often misapplied within automakers. I recently spoke at a conference of audio system engineers. From another speaker I learned that the OEMs do use J.D. Power data on audio system satisfaction when making audio system decisions, and that this drives the engineers nuts. For one thing, the survey doesn’t ask which of the available systems is in the car in question. For another, it’s not clear what is being measured–the vocabulary is vague. Finally, it turns out that the differences reported are rarely statistically significant. OEM execs attempt to make decisions based on the resulting scores anyway–so low quality decisions based on misperceived J.D. Power results are not limited to consumers.
J.D. Power would not be able to charge nearly as much as they do for their data if the results didn’t have an impact on consumer perceptions and, thus, sales. That they obtain this pricing leverage by providing car buyers with information that distorts perceptions–people are getting all wound up over one or two tenths of a problem per car–is cause for criticism.
Do GM executives feel that it’s just fundamentally impossible for Americans to engineer and build cars that are significantly better than the Germans and Japanese?
I would like to see Mr. Spina (perfect name for this job) comment on the scores of the rest of GM’s brands and their corporate average in both IQS and VDS.
What’s that? Sorry, couldn’t hear you?
IIRC, only Caddy and Chivy were above the average in IQS and I think only Caddy and Buick in VDS.
Want to look at your average next to Toy and Honda Mr. Spina?
If you make 10 customers happy and piss off 11 you still lose.
Consistently good scores are way more important than a few high points.
Bunter
Karesh – sorry, I just see your posts on anything that ever relates to quality, I haven’t really followed the specifics of your efforts to get TTAC to tone down their point of view on other firms that attempt to explain the mythical topic of “quality.”
But regarding your claim that the automaker in isolation has enough information… warranty data on your own product doesn’t translate to a comparison versus the competition. Simply saying warranty cost per unit is too high is simple – identifying the areas that are seriously lagging the competition (in order to better devote resources) requires information that touches all automakers. JD Power sends the exact same survey out to their car-buying-sample year over year. Plus warranty data doesn’t tell you if customers actually liked/disliked something. There are numerous questions asking people if they’re merely satisfied/happy with items like paint, NVH, etc that never appear as warranty claims unless they become severe problems. Basically there’s a level of detail there that a single carmaker would not have by itself.
And I’ve seen a lot of statistically significant gaps caused by design flaws and clear manufacturing defects; but this is why I keep repeating that the usefulness of their product is debatable since it’s not 100% useful all the time (as with all metrics it’s just yet another facet to consider). But the claim that they skew results to favor firms that pay them money is absurd.
Your comment about Nissan is interesting since their former Quality guy, Doug Betts, lives for using metrics like IQS and PP100 and trending them over time and comparing them against the competition. I’m sure whoever came in after Betts could have an equally effective means at approaching quality without using JD Powers at all.
I agree with the sentiment that JD Power should avoid ever speaking out to the public about their survey results. There is no way an end consumer can reasonably utilize their findings.
But, they’re a business – out to make money. And it doesn’t make sense to fault a company for developing its brand identity as being a firm that provides objective information for businesses wishing to compare entities in a given industry (JD Power does surveys for banking, retail, etc). Whether or not it’s useful is up for debate, but as of right now no one else is performing their service.
But I think the attitudes TTAC has against JD Power is an example where one finds fault in a few aspects of a topic and then tends to just jump all over it as if there were no positive merits at all. It’s an effective strategy that works with TTAC’s brand identity of being completely cynical in all aspects as it searches for Truth.
I swear I’m not making this up, but door/trunk/hood closing sound is one of the primary things that I look at when buying a vehicle.
Lokkii,
It’s not a matter of a single year being a fluke. Sometimes a new design has an above average number of problems in its first year. The 2007 Camry V6 is another example.
It’s too bad the XF is such a piece of junk. Jaguar was finally starting to get past their BL quality rep, and then they drop a steaming pile of crap that falls apart in all of 10 minutes. Boo Jaguar, Boo.
It’s the panel gap they should be more worried about.
It’s perfectly normal for there to be wide variation in survey data. For example, IIHS insurance losses for various vehicles made on the same line by the same people, etc. vary considerably. The 2004-2006 Chevy Surburban 1500 4DR has a ‘medical payment’ rating of 70, while the Yukon XL 1500 4DR has a rating of 50. I don’t know if it’s sample size or what, but this variation is common.
Now as to what should the manufacturers do with the data. Obviously it’s important to them in finding indications of weakness and strengths in their products as well as how it affects public perception. So why all the bitching? Really it’s what this site has become; just a 24/7 forum for putting down any and all.
It’s too bad the XF is such a piece of junk
It is? (I am not disagreeing, I just didn’t know that. Pity that damn quality skeleton just won’t stay in the closet.)
holydonut, how does JD Power get survey targets, i.e., the people that respond to the survey? I was just curious how the whole process worked.
GM’s problem is that I still have the wrong perception:
A 19 percent improvement in one year?
Sweet bleeding Houlihan!
Things were so bad that it was possible to make a 19 percent improvement in one year?
Yeah, that’s the one thing Gummint Motors doesn’t get: when you keep saying “we’re getting better” you are defacto saying “oh, that’s right, we sucked.”
Submitted as an example: one 1998 Buick Lesabre pile of crap.
John
Yeah, that’s the one thing Gummint Motors doesn’t get: when you keep saying “we’re getting better” you are defacto saying “oh, that’s right, we sucked.”
Not only that, you’re giving people a pretty big incentive not to buy your product.
After all, why should you buy this year’s model when next year’s might be 20 percent better still?
“I just can’t see why someone would pay the premium for a Cadillac Escalade when they could get a nice German alternative with such better engineering, unless they had very narrow and specific needs.”
Newsflash- The “fine” German piece of machinery will break. A lot. And cost a lot of $$!
A marketing guy who used to work here once put it this way: “Quality is what our customers say it is.” That’s hard for any engineer to hear, since we like things we can measure, but the statement is true. What it means to manufacturers is that a product can’t have any weak spots. ‘Cause what’s not important to one person may be the absolute most important thing to the next. I don’t care much about door sounds, but I like the handling to be crisp, and all the controls to be silky smooth. My daughter’s Buick has a surprisingly smooth engine, and a nice solid door sound. I can hardly bear to drive the thing.
I believe GM products now beat Toyota, maybe not Honda. Toyotas are overrated and over-hyped. I have owned both the Daewoo Suzukis and the Japanese Suzukis, and they both are good, but the Daewoos are better cars for the money. The Forenza is a better car (with Australian engine and ZF designed automatic) than a Focus or a Cobalt. In spite of what you read in the rags. In 2000, if you put a Camry side by side with a Malibu, the Camry won hands down. Now, I would much prefer the Malibu. Camry paint is not as good as Subaru paint, or GM paint. Fact, not fantasy.
all this survey stuff is really inconsequential. what matters to the American public is how the car looks, how good a deal did they get, and is the gas mileage ok?
the rest is facts and figures for folks with too much time on their hands.
Davekaybsc,
The XF is not a piece of crap. Our data indicate that it averages about 1.5 repair trips per year per car. About 2.5 times the average, but still far from “in the shop all the time.” Most reported problems are minor electrical, and owners tend to remain satisfied with the cars. Your odds of getting a lemon are perhaps one in twenty, and are probably not even this high.
The most accurate and fair survey has been the market.
Buickman,
Consider that your knowledge of what Americans want is largely limited to those who visit a Buick showroom in Flint.
The people you (often rightly) criticize at GM often reached similar conclusions using similar data.
Obviously, GM learned a lesson from the Bush administration (or was it the other way around?) – If you repeat something often enough, idiots will believe it.
Initial Quality helps tell the factories if they’re putting it together right the first time.
Also, Buickman is 90% right. He forgot to include “Will it carry my shit and will its features make my neighbors jealous” the rest is accurate. Customers couldn’t give a damn about compression ratios or torsion beam suspension or this or that as long as they think they’re getting a good deal.
The big threes problem is not that they aren’t good cars is that people think they suck. Whether they suck or not is what really matters.
As posted at GM…
Having quality that’s as good as your competition is certainly a good thing, but it’s not very compelling (i.e. Not good enough.) Having pissed off a whole generation of car buyers who vowed to never buy a GM car again, you need to actually be better than the competitors the (Old) “Bad GM” drove them to. The quality gap may be history, but the scars remain; tell me what you’re doing to WIN, tell me what you’re doing that would make me want to dump the car maker that provided a reliable trouble free ownership experience. Many owners left GM for a good reason, now it’s up to you to provide a compelling reason to return.
@ Michael Karesh on the XF:
I’d prefer to see the XF at the three-year (or five/six-year) mark before passing judgment on its overall quality.
I like JD Power’s VDS better than their IQS, but it’d be really nice to see data on the first few years a car is out of warranty. How frequent, severe, and costly are the repairs then, and how long on average does an owner tend keep the car at that point, as compared with other vehicles?
@ King Bojack:
I agree with your instinct… Initial quality tends to uncover fit and finish type issues, while the long-term studies tend to expose design flaws (e.g., GM piston slap, VW window regulators, Honda/Acura V6 transmissions).
When I can see 10 GMC/Chevy trucks /SUVs pass we going the other way and not at leasy one of them has one of the runnig lights (under the headlights ) out i will beleive in GM quality. model years going back at least 6 years. usually the passenger side. This component must be so old and tired the the fitting holding the bulb is so sloppy that either the bulb becomes unscrewed or the whole assy falls out.
prove me wrong GM…
Whether or not it’s useful is up for debate, but as of right now no one else is performing their service.
The problem people have with JD power is that it’s being used to mislead people.
Tho to be fair, that is kind of the point of marketing.
Michael,
I always enjoy your thoughtful comments.
A question. How do you control for the possibility that you’ll get more responses/sign-ups for your reliability stats from people who’ve had problems with their vehicle? I.e. an availability bias. If you don’t have problems you don’t go looking for someone to tell.
I could probably find this out by reading your site, but anyway I thought I would ask.
cheers
Malcolm
Couple points:
I see nonfunctioning running lights on all sort of late model lower-end GM vehicles. I had attributed it to GM’s “how much less can we buy them for this week” purchasing policy and the resulting garbage bulbs from Delphi or whoever.
From what I remember of the one I did last year, JD Power puts all sorts of stuff in their survey, most of which seems to be “did you like the car and its features” and only a fairly small portion covered warranty-type issues.
Sometimes the simple, commonsense approach is best. Competitive products, attractive price points, lengthy warranties, and good customer care. It worked for Hyundai, but GM has a lot more baggage.
A couple of things about this:
-A few years ago, JD Power changed the definition of “quality” as used in the IQS in order to include the user-friendliness of designs and features. The IQS is therefore no longer intended to be just a reliability score.
-Comparing the scores at the brand level with those at the nameplate level reveals incongruities. For example, even though the Cadillac brand gets the highest ranking of 5 stars (on a scale of 2-5), only the CTS received a 5-star rating. (The DTS and STS received 2 stars, while the Escalade and SRX received 4.) How that result turns into a 5-star rating for the brand, when only one of the vehicles received that sort of score, I don’t know, but I can’t see how that makes any sense.
I have no quarrel with JDP per se, but it pays to look at the nameplate scores and to look specifically at the categories that measure reliability for each car, instead of relying upon the “quality” score that includes issues that have nothing to with reliability. The brand-level scores are particularly deceiving.
In the 80’s, one of my co-workers had just bought a Buick Celebrity. As car guys are wont to do, we opened the hood. There, as proud as can be, was the oil cap, resting upside down on top of the air cleaner.
Initial quality my ass.
But then that was the 80’s. I had light bulbs, relays, and fuses burn out all the time on my GM cars of the 70’s and 80’s. Do y’all remember the old mid-80’s Trans Ams with the pop up headlights? Remember that guy driving around town with the T/A with the perpetual “wink” (one light up and the other down)? Yeah, that was me between relay replacements.
Dashboard lights would fail quickly, too. I used to wait for two or three bulbs to burn out in the dashboard before tearing it apart to replace them. While I was in there, I would always go ahead and replace ’em all to avoid having to break down the dashboard again too soon.
I felt like my dad on Christmas morning trying to find this or that bulb; Need a yellow one. No, that’s a flasher, dammit!
In five years, I’ve only had to replace one tail light bulb in my Prius. And it was easy, too; yay!
For example, even though the Cadillac brand gets the highest ranking of 5 stars (on a scale of 2-5), only the CTS received a 5-star rating. (The DTS and STS received 2 stars, and the Escalade and SRX received 4.) How that result turns into a 5-star rating, I don’t know, but I can’t see how that makes any sense.
It’s not outside the realm of possiblity if they’re curving separately for manufacturer vs model; add in weighing and generous rounding.
—
I take that back. It seems they are using both “initial quality” and “performance and design” in the “overall quality” score of each manufacturer
In any case, JDPS is bullshit because I doubt they factor out the self-selective nature of each brand’s customers.
I’ve had quite a few Hondas over the years.
My older Hondas were great. The newer ones were junk.
I’ve since learned to check the VIN. The good Hondas I owned were all made in Japan. The junk was all made in North America.
It just seems that North Americans simply can not do assembly line work. Regardless of UAW, etc.
I would buy a GM over a North American Honda (etc). If you get the same (lower) quality, might as well pay substantially less.
Otherwise, I will wil only look at cars that are “Made in Japan”. Not the USA, not Canada, not Mexico and sure as hell not China or India.
If I’m spending this much money on something, I care about LONG-TERM RELIABILITY AND DURABILITY. And I’m sorry, but I’m no more likely to waste my money on a GM vehicle now than I was 30 years ago. I have zero confidence that I won’t have anything but plagues of problems and huge out-of-pocket costs after five or six years. The JDP “initial quality” survey is virtually meaningless, in my book.
malcolmmacaulay: Participants report on problems going forward. Previous problems cannot be reported on the main survey, and thus cannot distort the results.
Pch101: I had not realized that JD Power already updated the “circle dots.” Last year these lagged by a few weeks, IIRC.
For the best indication of initial reliability, look at “overall quality mechanical.” Here the CTS got four stars. It’s highest scores were in design.
Looking through the new circle dot ratings, there are many I find hard to believe. It’s quite possible that J.D. Power’s survey, by asking so many specific questions, gets people to report problems that they had not previously given much if any thought to.
OldWingGuy:
Assembly often has little to do with it. What specific problems did you have with newer Hondas? Which ones could have been due to faulty assembly?
Engineering and component manufacturing, not final assembly, are the most common sources of problems.
Long term quality and reliability at GM? When I arrived at work this morning my 2000 Pontiac Bonneville odo was showing 210,554 miles. Original engine and trans. 25 mpg all day long cruising near 80. I agree, GM needs to report more about long term QRD. The report might take some sludge out of the perception. Tom @ GM
As a guy who deals with statistics all the time … and have followed JDP results (ours and competitors) for years … there are a couple of really important things that we all need to keep in mind when looking at any metrics like these:
* Quality is what the customer thinks it is … whether that’s the sound of a door slam or how fast a light bulb burns out. JDP tries to capture all of those factors in its various surveys.
* Progress, not perfection. It’s a machine and by definition will never be perfect as long as humans design and build them. But we’ll keep striving for progress, which of the past few years has been steady and real. Even Toyotas and Hondas are not perfect — but they are VERY good, according to customers.
* Any score of any survey that measures PPH (problems per hundred) that has scores under 100 means that, according to those responding to the survey, there are at least some totally problem-free products in the marketplace. Just ten years ago, that was unheard of … for any manufacturer.
* Regardless of any survey or result, if you are having a problem with your car, it’s a problem. How a manufacturer/dealer handles the problem is another opportunity to build brand loyalty. GM dealers routinely score very well in customer satisfaction surveys — and we must.
Bottom line — if you have spent the last ten years with your butt planted in an import, you are shortchanging yourself if you don’t at least consider a new GM product when shopping for your next new car or truck. The folks I’ve put into our cars and trucks have routinely been very surprised at the quality and value they see … “This is a GM?”
Yep — it sure is!
John McDonald
Spokesman, GM Detroit
The issue is this: GM lost me to Honda. The only way for GM to get me back is to build a better engine than Honda (highly unlikely in the near future) at a price at or lower than Honda (not likely either). What incentive do I have right now to switch to GM?
If you watched the recent Indy 500, you saw 33 identical Honda engines going 500 miles at near 12000 rpm and NOT ONE SINGLE ENGINE PROBLEM. I would love to see Danica wearing a honda t-shirt and tight jeans.
To me the resale value of the vehicle is tops in measuring the true quality of a car. If a certain car requires abnormal amounts of repairs or extremely costly repairs even if few the free market of information to potential buyers distresses (lowers) the transaction price.
Take a any car and its closest competitors – where a car that has problems (either from built quality / materials, warranty coverage, MFGR’s recognition of problems [outside of warranty] and action / inaction to remedy such, design, styling, incentives, risky financing) – these actions by the MFGR will lower the resale price compared to another model that does these things better.
For instance, where the MFGR sold too many cars for the demand either with high rebates or stuffed fleets – when these rental or poorly maintained cars (b/c owners couldn’t afford to buy them let alone maintain them) and abused cars stuff the wholesale / auctions affecting resale value.
I look at the JD Power and other surveys with little guidance towards my next purchase. Instead, I base it off of what the market truly thinks a car is worth.
MikeyDee: Might be worth your time to go back and look at the 24 Hours of LeMans history. Most agree it is the first and foremost true test of endurance. Six of the last ten years of GT1 have been taken by Corvette. In the last 11 years in the ALMS there has only been one engine failure.
While Honda to be complimented on their engine expertise I have to ask you to seriously consider the LS9 in the ZR1, the 2.0L DI turbo in the Cobalt SS and the Ward’s Top Ten award winning 3.6L V6 in the Cadillac CTS just for starters. These engines not only compete but are recognized in the engineering field as some of the world’s finest. Tom @ GM
With a few exceptions, engine durability isn’t much of an issue these days. Transmissions, on the other hand…
That said, I was disappointed to learn recently that my aunt had to fork over $4,000 for a rebuild of her 1999 Northstar engine when a head gasket started to leak. I guess this is the “leaky Northstar” issue mentioned above. Apparently once the head bolts are removed, the sockets are stripped. She was told that this problem is so expensive to fix that she might as well have the engine rebuilt while they were at it.
What’s the genius who was in charge of developing the original Northstar up to these days?
Bonneville – there’s no doubting that GM builds a class leading v8 whether in their trucks or the Corvette. GM has really put a lot of engineering in develping it’s v8 engines technology and has done well but still has the stigma of OHV hanging over its head. Look at GM’s OHV v6s have almost finally gone by the wayside and outside of those who love those engines they have never been anything special.
Frankly the standard Ecotec engine is really a non factor compared to most other inline 4 engines – this is in NVH, power, economy, engine noise, etc. Really the only way the Ecotec engine is laudible for any credit is when you add forced induction. But then you have to consider the competitions other 4 cylinder forced fed engines (these include: Evo IX, A4 2.0T, Neon SRT-4, Mazdaspeed 2.3T, Saab T4, WRX boxer turbo – just to name a few). The US built Ariel Atoms orginially came with Ecotec NA and forced fed 4’s but now they are sold with the Honda CTR engine that they originally were designed for back in the UK.
I’ve yet to drive a CTS with the new v6 – only have driven the CTS V (fun car) – so can’t comment on that one.
dealership experience-HA!
Piston slap issue-“They all do it”
Dexclog
clunk in steering rack-“lube up the I-shaft”
The GM 100K warranty-brought to you by the letters N,P, and F. (No Problem Found)