TrueDelta

Some people have told TrueDelta that what they’d really like to know, more than average repair rates, is which problems are especially common with a given car. This way, when shopping for a used car they would could:

• Closely inspect typical problem areas
• Check if likely repairs have already been performed

In response, TrueDelta is launching the Common Auto Repairs Database – the CARDb. Not only will this database provide helpful information about common problems all in one spot, but it will include links to forum discussions where you can learn additional details.

Initially there won’t be many entries. But we’ll get there! If you’re aware of common problems with your car, please log in and enter them.

For examples of entries, visit the page for the Infiniti G35.

Finally, if you have any suggestions for improvements, please post them. This section is brand new, and I expect to keep improving and expanding it over time.

Since the Fuel Economy Survey began, the survey has asked for a miles per gallon or liters per 100 kilometers figure, depending on where you live. But a number of members emailed me asking for the ability to enter the distance traveled and amount of fuel used individually, and the price of the fuel as well. This way they could track how much gas they’ve used, how much it has cost them, and so forth.

It is now possible to enter these data. But this is not required. Those who use trip computers can still enter their fuel economy results as before.

It is also possible for those who have both sets of figures to enter both. If enough people do this, we might finally get to the bottom of suspicions that trip computers are less accurate than manual calculations.

Additional upgrades to the Fuel Economy Survey are planned, but will be implemented after an extensive redesign of the database.

It’s auto show season again, so we’re being teased with a slew of new racy “concepts.” Time to wonder what these might indicate about future production cars, and wonder what the point is to the things in the first place.

Over at the Autos Blog for the Detroit News, reporter Neil Winton laments that the Worthy New Jaguar XF Rejects Concept’s Pizzazz. He notes that the C-XF concept was much more appealing, and was created after the production design had been finalized, and concludes (emphasis mine):

Jaguar design chief Ian Callum, presenting the car to journalists this week in England, said that the design of the new XF had already been finalised when the C-XF was unveiled. So all that excitement and anticipation was for nothing. Callum said that Jaguar wanted to signal to the world that its design language was changing.

I’m not sure if raising buyers’ hopes to fever-pitch with a concept car like the C-XF, then deflating them with the real thing, is the best way to sell new cars. What is undoubtedly a terrific replacement for the slow selling and dated looking S Type, will start its life in this potential buyer’s eyes as a disappointment, when the C-XF might have persuaded me to buy a Jaguar for the first time.

I’ve long wondered the same thing–why raise expectations with concepts if these aren’t going to be fulfilled? There are actually three kinds of concepts: totally off-the-wall exercises that at best demonstrate far-future possibilities, potentially producible concepts that are truly testing the waters to see if the public will buy, and concepts that are based on already finalized production designs, to provide a preview of a vehicle that is already on the way.

The third type is probably the most common and is at any rate far more common than many people realize. I’ve read many times that GM ruined the Pontiac Aztek in converting the concept into a production vehicle. Guess what? The conversion went the other way: the production sheetmetal had been finalized before the concept was shown. Just like with the C-XF.

The C-XF is only among the more extreme examples, since all of the sheetmetal appears to differ from the less swoopy and less aggressive production XF. (Though I’m sure some people, glancing at these smallish photos, will think they look much the same.) More often, the production sheetmetal is used, but dressed up with larger wheels and a more aggressive body kit than will be available on the production car. GM did this with the AURA a few years ago. When the production car was revealed, more than a few people were disappointed, myself included. This even though the sheetmetal of the concept was the production car’s.

In the end, the far-out concepts do little for me, and the third sort frequently lead to disappointment like that expressed by Mr. Winton. So what I’d prefer to see is a much higher proportion of the second sort, that show what might happen, before a decision has been made to make it happen.

Just the other day I wrote about how my father has ordered a 2008 Cadillac CTS, his first GM car in a quarter-century.

This morning we learned that the car has won Motor Trend’s Car of the Year award. Some people are bound to be surprised by this win. Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons why the car won:

1. It looks great and performs well.

2. With the Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Malibu, and Buick Enclave, GM has put three great products on the road in the last year. They gave the SUV award to Mazda. By giving the award to the CTS, they recognize GM’s broader achievement.

3. GM has been buying Special Advertising Sections like crazy, and can be counted on to advertise the crap out of this award. Not that MT can necessarily be bought, but they’re highly unlikely to give the award to a manufacturer that won’t be doing a ton of advertising.

I think all three factors likely contributed to the win.

One additional note: The Pontiac G8 was not eligible for the award because it will go on sale after the deadline. I would not be surprised if GM delayed the car’s launch in part to make it eligible for next year’s award. Why have it compete against the CTS and Malibu for the same award?

The Financial Times is calling the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu GM’s “last-chance saloon.” Where have I seen this headline before? Oh, yeah, pretty much every time one of the domestic automakers has launched a major new sedan in the last quarter-century.

But the reality is that no one product is going to make or break the manufacturer. The company’s situation might improve or worsen, at times considerably, but no single product will put a vehicle manufacturer securely back on top or plunge it into bankruptcy. These companies never take that level of risk with new products, for the simple reason that no one in charge is truly willing to bet a decades-old, multi-billion-dollar company on a single new product. Because they’re sane.

And so what we have actually witnessed has been a long, slow, somewhat controlled retreat, with the manufacturers managing to remain solvent, if just barely. So why the dramatic language in the press? Because long, slow reteats, while tragic, don’t make for gripping headlines. “Make or break” products do.

Back when I first got into cars, I talked my father into buying a 1983 Pontiac 6000 STE instead of a Saab 900 Turbo. The Saab was neat, and he really wanted it. But Detroit had gotten to me with all its flag waving, and the magazines were talking up the Pontiac as a legitimate alternative to the Audi 5000, then the benchmark semi-affordable midsize sedan. Partly to make me happy, my father bought the Pontiac.

It wasn’t as interesting as the Saab, but he was generally satisfied with it for the three years that he owned it. But he bought a Lincoln Mk VII LSC three years later, then a Lexus LS 400 in 1991, and his primary car has been a Lexus ever since.

In 1985 I bought a Pontiac myself, a 2000 Sunbird Turbo convertible. It was a fun car, but proved unreliable, going through an alternator, exhaust manifold, spark plug wires, and automatic transmission (the only one I’ve had) in the first 28,000 miles. The problems weren’t the problem. How the dealer dealt with them was the problem. At one point I gave them a choice: waive a $70 charge I felt should be covered by warranty, or lose me as a customer for a very long time, if not for life. (Turned out to be a very long time rather than for life.)

From that point on I realized that as much as many Americans were pulling for Detroit, Detroit wasn’t going to return the favor. It’s all business in the end.

My father never felt burned by Detroit on reliability, even though the first few Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable wagons my mother has driven since 1986 had a penchant for transmission and head gasket failures. Instead, he hadn’t bought a domestic car for himself since 1986 because how they looked and drove did nothing for him.

Then I took him to test drive the new 2008 Cadillac CTS. No pressure from me on this one, I just show him what’s available and write up a joint evaluation.

He felt that the new CTS drove well enough, though his standards here aren’t the highest. The main thing he disliked about 1990s Cadillacs was torque steer (they were front-wheel-drive the last time he bought a sedan) and a general feeling of float while acclerating. His main concern with the new CTS is the road noise we heard on some roads during the test drive. He’s never been entirely happy with his current Lexus, a GS 400, because of road noise (especially with the replacement tires).

What really sold him on the Cadillac CTS was the styling, both inside and out. And the fact that where he lives hardly anyone buys a Cadillac car–it’s now the outsider brand, like Saab was back in 1983. So, for the first time in a quarter-century he’s ordered a GM car.

He also asked me about the new 2008 Chevrolet Malibu–an advertising photo for the car really caught his eye. So GM seems to be finally getting the styling thing spot on. Will my father be an isolated success, or might striking exterior styling combined with upgraded interiors and decent dynamics win people back?

Of course, the 2008 Cadillac CTS is a new design, and sometimes new designs have teething problems. It’s too soon for even TrueDelta’s methods to provide any insight here. If GM’s new designs do win many people back, I hope that it handles any problems well enough that these people aren’t lost all over again.

A few weeks ago I posted that including as many 2008 models as possible in the next set of results was a top priority. I’ve even put the header into the pot–the 2008s with the most responses will replace the current vehicles in the header. (Maybe this will become an annual thing.)

So, who’s in the running?

Buick Enclave – 65

This one’s a lock, thanks to an early start and Buick Enclave forum enclaveforum.net.

Honda Accord – 24

Really picking up steam lately, thanks to Accord forum driveaccord.net. Strong odds of maintaining Honda’s presence at the top of the page.

Infiniti G35 / G37 – 22

Nissan Versa – 22

Nissan Altima – 21

Thanks are due once again to Nissan and Infiniti forum NICOClub.com.

Mercedes-Benz C-Class – 20 

Joining more more readily than the average Mercedes owner.

BMW 5-Series – 17

An early start, so might get in there with an asterisk based on the number of months of data rather than the number of responses. 

Saturn VUE – 16

Starting to pick up speed, thanks to Saturn forum SaturnFans.com.

Scion xB – 16

Scion forum Scionzone.com recently starting lending a hand.

Cadillac CTS – 15

The CTS has been tough, despite the help of Cadillac forums. I’m still hopeful, though.

The above forums have been especially helpful in getting 2008s into the forum quickly. For a full list of the forums that have been helping with TrueDelta’s research, click here. By participating in these forums, you can help return the favor.

A car can have problems from the momment you drive it off the lot. Sometimes these problems can be difficult or even impossible to fix, such as an odd vibration when driving on the highway. Once you sign the papers and leave the lot, though, the car and its problems are yours (at least until a lemon law kicks in).

To avoid having this happen with any car you buy, be sure to drive the actual car (not just one like it) before you sign the papers. When driving the car, drive it at a variety of speeds, from around town to the fastest you’re likely to go on the highway. Pay close attention to how the car sounds and feels. Are there any odd noises or vibrations?

Also closely inspect the exterior and interior for blemishes or damage. One panel member ended up having a new vehicle almost entirely repainted after taking delivery at night.

Which reminds me: don’t take delivery at night.

TrueDelta’s results currently include all shop trips that included a successful repair (unless this repair was a simple reflash). We don’t yet distinguish between “serious” repairs and minor ones. Often this is suggested. But doing this can be very tricky.

As I first reported back in June of 2006, Consumer Reports’ method contains a serious flaw: they ask that only serious issues be reported, and then have each individual respondent decide whether or not a repair was serious enough to report. The serious issue with this: different people are going to differently evaluate the same problem.

The problem with this approach is evident just by looking at the revised list of problem categories: they now include “squeaks and rattles.” What would make a rattle a “serious issue”? Whatever the criteria, if there even are criteria by which a rattle might be deemed “serious,” such an evaluation is going to vary greatly from person to person.

Oddly, such an evaluation appears to vary depending on the powertrain a car has. If there’s one car Consumer Reports has a beyond sufficient sample size for, it’s the Toyota Camry. Yet with the 2007 Camry, “squeaks and rattles” are “much worse than average” with the Hybrid and V6, but “average” with the four-cylinder.

How might this be explained? I can only venture a guess that the highly subjective wording of their questionnaire injects so much noise into responses that even their huge sample size for the Camry cannot compensate.

In the future, TrueDelta will likely post a separate set of results that include only major repairs. But we’ll be using much more objective criteria to determine which repairs are in fact major. And I doubt any rattles will qualify.

You know those arcade games where you drop a quarter in, and if it lands just right a bunch of previously dropped quarters–that appear to be teetering on the edge–will fall into the trough? Well, TrueDelta’s Vehicle Reliability Survey is much the same way for me. As people respond at the end of the quarter, I watch as the number of models with at least the minimum number of responses increases day by day. Okay, hour by hour.

There are always a bunch of models RIGHT ON THE EDGE, just a response shy of being included. As the responses come in, it’s very gratifying to see them get that last, essential response that puts them over the top.

And then there’s the end of the collection period, where we now are. Yesterday morning there were four models a single response shy of the minimum for no asterisk, and three more just two responses short. A larger number of models were just a response or two shy of being included at all, with an asterisk.

I sent special emails to all non-responding members for these models. Which put a few models over the top. This morning I set another round, and as a result a few more models will be in the upcoming official results. Yes, I just keep dropping those quarters in the slot.

I’m extending data collection for the quarter through the weekend, and will be watching the results table intently. A few models remain SO close…