Way back in 1995, a certain Robert A Lutz, then president of Chrysler, proclaimed “there is no other area in the field of human communications that is as rife with disinformation as the story on Chrysler quality.” Much water has passed under the bridge since ’95. These day, Chrysler’s quality occupies the basement of most reliablle rankings, while overstuffed suits cry perception gap. Despite flying under the industry standard in J.D. Power and Consumer Report rankings, Chrysler has recently taken to trumpeting a 29 percent decrease in warranty costs. Now the Cerberusian dog is putting its lack of money where its mouth is, telling the Detroit Free Press that it’s setting aside less money for warranty costs. “When you ship a car, you reserve the money for its whole lifetime of warranty. Based on where you think you’re at, that’s how much money you reserve,” explains Chrysler’s chief customer officer and former Nissan man Doug Betts. “A decrease of “30% … is hundreds of millions of dollars.” But the Freep catches something that deserves some attention. “Betts said Chrysler is measuring quality by the rate of warranty claims within a new vehicle’s first 3 months in service, a reliable bellwether for predicting total problems for the life of a vehicle’s warranty.” But doesn’t reliability become most important towards the end of a vehicle’s life? Isn’t that why Chrysler introduced its “lifetime powertrain warranty?” And all this while Chyrsler’s is squeezing suppliers for a 25 percent cost reduction? Auburn Hills must be incredibly cash-starved confident to light this financial time bomb now.

TrueDelta has released the August results of its Vehicle Reliability Survey. Among the models surveyed: the 2009 Nissan Murano, 2009 Jaguar XF, 2008 smart fortwo (no caps) and 2008 Saturn ASTRA (all caps). The Murano follows the Rogue in requiring fewer repairs in its first few months than Nissan's previous redesigns. The smart requires more repairs than the average car, but not too many more. That would be the Jaguar. Though the sample size for the new XF was small, the reported repair rate was nearly four times the average of a nearly new car. Most commonly reported… wait for it… electrical glitches. Finally, the most reliable of the three European-sourced models, with a require rate about half the average, comes from… GM. GM designs often require far fewer repairs in their second year of production. Following what used to be a common practice with new Japanese designs, the ASTRA also spent its first year overseas. So it comes to the U.S. nearly glitch-free. Full results at the link below.

Chrysler ranks below the industry standard in J.D. Power and Consumer Report quality ratings. So when ChryCo VP for manufacturing Frank Ewasyshyn announced that warranty costs had fallen by 29 percent in the past year, he had a bit of trouble explaining why the improved reliability wasn't showing up on recent external surveys. When asked by MSNBC to explain this conundrum, Ewasyshyn replied, "If I could answer that question, you wouldn't be asking it. We certainly put enough energy and effort into it." He points to all the things Chrysler is doing right: sending teams to investigate recurring vehicle problems, establishing worker input boards, and standardizing production processes. But then Ewasyshyn takes a page from the GM's handbook: "In the meantime the rest of the organization is focused on improving the things that are customer dissatisfiers, or again, perceived quality." To be fair, Chrysler is digging its way out of a giant hole. Before Daimler offloaded Chrysler, it had the highest warranty costs in the nation; improvements haven't been dramatic enough to bring things up to industry standards. Meanwhile, Chrysler is essentially staying the Tom Lasorda-guided course. "We've got a plan. It works. We're gonna stick to it. And it's constantly being reinforced," Ewasyshyn said. "We know the right formula. Sticking to it and just constantly pushing it every day of the week, challenging people to do better, that's how we're going to get this thing done once and for all."

Well, here we are, sitting on the latest WP platform. So far, so good. Well, except for the problem with the podcast and the numerous New Content Notifications sent out for same. And yes, we know that the podcast's iTunes listing falls off the proverbial table after two days. Rest assured, as I do, that our highly capable technical staff are on the case. There's a lot of custom code within this sucker, so they've done well to get us this far. While they sort that out, if you experience any other glitches, please note them below. Hopefully, the new WP platform will solve the problems with the comment edit functions and, get this, offer some advantages. Like… a gallery! Yes, an honest-to-God photo gallery function with thumbnails and all. The new platform is also a first step towards our totally rad web 2.0 site. But, for the time being, thanks again for your patience, understanding and participation. 

J.D. Power has released its Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Once again, the scores combine design quality (stuff that can’t be fixed, like BMW's iDrive) and manufacturing quality (stuff that can and should be fixed). Once again, these results convey little useful information. For one thing, J.D. only releases the scores for makes, not for individual models. For another, the make scores are so close together that the rankings aren't particularly revealing. Only a single make beats the average (1.18 problems) by more than 20 percent: Porsche. The list of who’s doing 20 percent worse than average is longer: Chrysler, Mitsubishi, Saab, Suzuki, Saturn, Land Rover, MINI and Jeep. So these are the makes to avoid, right? It depends on how wound-up you get about a single additional initial problem for every three cars (you’re buying at least three, right?) in the first 90 days. And remember: J.D. doesn’t release individual model scores. At some point, J.D’ll give us “circle dots,” but these won’t divulge which models score poorly enough to earn only a single dot— the lowest score is two dots.  

[Fair disclosure: Michael Karesh runs TrueDelta, which also measures vehicle quality.]

In our previous edition, the Jaguar XF's headlights had given up the ghost, only to be restored with donor parts from a new, still-on-the-lot XF. This morning, while driving to base to take part in my USAF fitness test, I received a peculiar indication in the center (centre?) computer display: "Performance Reduction." I'd witnessed this message before, when driving quickly through a very high mountain pass. The computer limits the engine output by about 20 percent. Stopping and restarting the car seems to take care of the problem. However, why would it reduce performance while going no more than 45mph in stop-n-go traffic? I can only surmise I angered the spirits of Castle Bromwich. Maybe I should hold a seance over the "power bulge" hood to exorcise the rest of the demons lurking in the convoluted wiring of my Jag, which we have named, "Lady Margaret," or Maggie.

Conventional wisdom says never buy a car the first year it's on the market, whether it's a brand new model or a redesign of an existing one. TrueDelta's latest quarterly results say… it depends from whence cometh the car. The 2008 Honda Accord, Nissan Rogue and Mercedes C-Class, for example, all boast a better than average repair rate. On the other hand, GM. Last year, the GMC Acadia and Saturn's Aura and Outlook showed higher than normal repair rates. So far this model year, they're lower than average rates. The cycle is repeating for the 2008 Cadillac CTS (2.5 times the average repair rate) and Saturn Vue (1.5 times the average). TrueDelta developer Michael Karesh sums it up thus: "For GM, rough launches appear to be the rule rather than the exception." So the next time GM CEO Rick Wagoner and Co. feel like mouthing-off about the "perception gap" supposed afflicting their narrow-minded non-customers, they should visit TrueDelta (and/or TTAC) for some cold, hard truth. if we don't say so ourself. Which we do. 

Last month, Ford released the results of a self-commissioned study claiming their initial quality is as good as Toyota's. Well, Toyota ain't gonna take it; no! They ain't gonna take! On their Open Road Blog, corporate mouthpiece Mike Michaels goes to great lengths to explain that the Ford survey isn't the J.D. Power survey– which places Toyota above Ford. However, Michaels points-out that all of these initial quality surveys "deal with problems that surface only in the first 90 days." They're "useful, maybe, if you're going to rent the car for three months" (and God knows how many times we've done that.) Michaels then proclaims that brand loyalty– where Toyota and Lexus rank at the top– is the only true indicator of quality. That's the only way to know "how your car will treat you long after that new-car smell is gone." It's also a great way to know which car company has the most effective brainwashing marketing or the most risk-aversive customers. But there's one question Mr. Michaels left unanswered: why should we believe a survey that placing Toyota over Ford is any more accurate than one placing Ford on the same plane as Toyota when the methodology behind both of them is clouded in smoke and mirrors? Enquiring minds want to know.

Consumeraffairs.com reports NHTSA is investigating complaints of rust producing "fist-sized holes" in the subframe on Hyundai Sonatas, resulting in suspension failure. So far the problem has occurred in 1999 – 2002 model year Sonatas. The rust weakens the subframe to the point where it causes "wheel collapse or separation, half shaft detachment resulting in sudden vehicle disablement and or steering anomalies" according to the NHTSA web site. Most of the reports are from states where salt is used to control ice in the winter. Several accidents have been reported, and one car was rusted so badly the insurance company totaled it. If you have a Sonata, you may want to check under it to see if yours is affected. The car comes with a seven-year, unlimited mileage warranty against rust through; depending on how old yours is, you may need to move fast. Or slowly. Or both.

We just received this photo via email from one of TTAC's Best and Brightest: "This may be out of date, but I figured you may find it noteworthy for the Volt birthwatch series. Just under a year ago, GM had a Volt on display at the Indy 500. The car was likely a non-running example, but nonetheless it was there to showcase GM's engineering prowess so I judged it in that light. What I saw was… not good. Some of the trim on the Volt was rusting! Rust! On such a high profile vehicle at such a high profile event!" As the photo shows, it wasn't just a spot or two, either. Whatever GM's reason for showing the vehicle in this condition, let's just hope the production version – whatever it ends up looking like – will have better quality trim. And that their attention to the detail on this display model isn't indicative of their attention to detail on the engineering side.

Ford isn't wasting any time bragging about their bought and paid for surveys claiming that their quality is now on par with Toyota's. However, as the Detroit News reveals, FoMoCo's newfound reliability has dealers losing money on warranty work. The National Automobile Dealers Association estimates Ford dealers currently lose $30 on every new car they sell; they make up the difference through financing, add-ons, service and warranty work. [U.S. car dealers earned $7.7b on warranty repairs last year.] With warranty work shrinking, they'll have to earn more money elsewhere. To that end, Ford's introducing a line of aftermarket accessories called "Customs" focusing (so to speak) on "high-profit items like custom wheels and electronics." So in addition to paint protection, window etching and LoJack, Ford dealers will be hawking factory-authorized customization. Pimp my profits?

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.