Archive for November, 2009

When buying a car, you probably wonder: what are the odds it will turn out to be a lemon? Does it have a shot at requiring no repairs at all?

Traditional sources of car reliability information have never answered these questions. They’ve only provided vague dot ratings that indicate how a car compares to the average for all cars. Even TrueDelta, which has been providing car models’ average repair frequencies, and not just dots, has not been directly answering these questions. Instead, you’ve had to infer your odds of getting a lemon from the average repair frequency.

With the latest update to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey results, released today, this will no longer be necessary. This update includes two new statistics: “Nada-odds” and “Lemon-odds.” From a car model’s Nada-odds, you can learn how many cars out of a hundred required no repairs at all—nada—in the past year. And from its Lemon-odds you can learn how many out of a hundred had to go to the repair shop three or more times in the past year.

It turns out that the odds of getting a problem-free car are higher than you probably suspect, while the odds of getting a lemon are probably much lower. Many of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 models included in these results had a three-in-four chance—or better—of requiring no repairs at all, not even a minor one, in the past year.

And the Lemon-odds? With many fairly new cars your chances of a lemon are under one in a hundred, and under one-in-twenty is the norm. Only with the least reliable cars are your odds worse than one-in-ten. The horror stories are real, just a lot less common than many people think.

These new stats require more data on more cars. So this initial set of results covers only 100 models, 36 of which are only visible to members. As the number of participants grows, we’ll be able to provide these stats for more and more models.

“Nada-odds” and “Lemon-odds”

Earlier this week Chrysler talked about taking real steps to improve its quality. Today it’s GM. Mark Reuss, GM’s head of engineering, had this to say to the Detroit Free Press:

“Reliability has been the Achilles’ heel of GM for my entire career,” he said, promising he would focus the company’s engineers around the world on fixing the problem. “It gets down to an individual engineer’s ability to find a problem and leadership’s ability to fix it,” he said, adding that too many GM engineers have been reluctant to point out problems because they were afraid they’d get the blame rather than praise for catching the mistake before customers suffered.

It’s refrreshing to hear Reuss speaking so candidly. But such talk isn’t entirely new. Will the talk translate into action and results this time around? Unlike Chrysler, Reuss didn’t mention any concrete steps being taken to get there other than not firing people who bring up quality problems.

The reaction of some over at GMInsideNews: Reuss should be fired for mentioning GM’s quality problems.

Too many of GM’s recent launches have been rough. I see this in responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. For example, there seem to be some Lambda crossovers that are simply not fixable. On the other hand, the Malibu has been solid from the start.

TrueDelta’s results promptly update four times a year. So when GM does launch a solid product (or not), that information will often appear here first:

Car Reliability Survey results

According to today’s Detroit News, Chrysler is claiming that they will be a (though not “the”) quality leader by the end of 2012. They (and many other auto makers) have made similar claims before. Sometimes they achieve these goals. More often they don’t. Chrysler’s chances?

Chrysler is increasing its odds of success by making what appear to be substantial changes to its organization and culture. A new senior VP of quality has been hired away from Nissan (they’re a quality leader?). The quality organizatioin has been enlarged from 200 to 1,700 people. These people have been organized into cross-functional teams focused on the quick execution of needed changes. Perhaps the biggest change of all: Chrysler now claims that they will tackle problems rather than pretending they don’t exist or ignoring them and hoping they’ll go away. (Which has been proven to result in customers going away.)

Unknown: whether these people really have the pull to get their requested changes executed. Large organizations are chock full of special teams charged with getting something done, but without the pull to actually get it done. Is this one of those?

Chryler claims that engineering changes have already had a substantial impact on existing products. Supposedly, while 75 percent of defects were design-related last year, with the remaining 25 percent occurring during assembly, the ratio is now 50-50. If we assume that the number of assembly defects has not changed (which raises the question–why not, since its easier to quickly eliminate these?), this implies that the total number of defects has already been cut in half.

Too good to be true? Are these just rough, shoot-from-the-hip numbers? Perhaps, but if the head of quality is dishing out such numbers…not the most promising sign.

TrueDelta promptly updates its Car Reliability Survey results four times a year, not just once after a lengthy delay. So if Chrysler’s quality does improve, it will show up here first:

Car Reliability Survey results

Motor Trend has announced that the Ford Fusion has won its Car of the Year award.

The Fusion isn’t a particularly exciting car. So why the win? Probably because the Ford Fusion has become the poster child for Detroit’s ability to build a good car for the average person. It’s the car that car enthusiasts now recommend to their aunt or their non-enthusiast friends when they don’t want to recommend a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord.

Why recommend the Fusion? Because it does everything fairly well, and nothing badly (except, in my experience, the comfort of the rear seat cushion). The Ford Fusion Sport variant, with a 3.5-liter V6 and optional AWD, is even fun to drive, if not quite a blast. (If they offered the new EcoBoost V6 in the Fusion, that WOULD be a blast.) Meanwhile, the Ford Fusion Hybrid earns the best EPA ratings in the midsize sedan class.

It also helps that the Fusion how has four model years with proven reliability.

Another finalist, the Camaro, as good as it is for what it is, is too much a symbol of the old Detroit way of doing things to win an award like this.

Suzuki has released the pricing and features for its new (almost) midsize Kizashi sedan, and I rushed them into TrueDelta’s database to see how the car stacks up. Suzuki is marketing the car as offering more features and premium materials for the same or less money. But does it really?

Compared to a Chevrolet Malibu LS (with optional spare tire and Bluetooth), the base trim Kizashi S lists for $1,526 less, and adjusting for feature differences widens the gap to about $2,100. Comparing loaded cars, the Kizashi SLS lists for $2,041 less than a Malibu LTZ (with optional spare tire and sunroof). Feature levels when both are loaded are about the same.

The Kizashi is offered with AWD. In this case, the Subaru Legacy might be its closest competitor. Comparing base trims, the Legacy 2.5i is $794 less. Adjusting for feature differences (again the Suzuki has a higher level of standard equipment) narrows the gap to about $200. Load up both cars an the MSRP difference remains about $800 in the Subaru’s favor, but the two are nearly the same after adjusting for feature differences. Features like keyless access and ignition, rear obstacle detection, rear air vents, rear side airbags, and memory for the driver’s seat are standard on the Kizashi SLS, but aren’t available at all on the Subaru.

Note that the Suzuki is a shorter car than the Chevrolet and the Subaru, and offers two inches less rear legroom than either.

Given the Kizashi’s size, it might make sense to compare it to a semi-premium compact, VW’s Jetta. As pricey as the Jetta seems when compared to other compacts, it does list for $1,280 less than the Kizashi S even with the optional rear side airbags and iPod connection (both are standard on the Suzuki). Adjusting for feature differences only narrows the gap to about $950, still in the VW’s favor. Loading up the cars only widens the gaps by a few hundred dollars.

Suzuki would prefer a comparison to the Acura TSX, a premium compact. The Kizashi SLS lists for $3,886 less, and adjusting for feature differences only reduces the gap by about $175–the Suzuki is equipped similarly to the Acura.

The key question, then, is whether the Suzuki Kizashi is worthy of being compared to the Acura. Suzuki claims that the Kizashi’s interior is a cut or two above mainstream fare, so perhaps. I’ll be sure to check this out when I drive one. But the badge will be hard to overcome even if the interior warrants a premium designation.

And if it doesn’t? Then the price isn’t anything special, and the lack of rear legroom could hurt.

To further compare the Kizashi’s features and pricing:

Car price comparisons

A few days ago Chrysler presented their five-year-plan to journalists. The associated new ads have gotten most of the attention, because they, well, could be better.

But other aspects of the plan are more worthy of attention: Best coverage of the Chrysler’s Five-year Plan.

It’s worth noting that the Fiat and Chrysler lines have very little overlap, so each company will be able to fill out its line by working together. New engines sound promising. Chrysler has a new V6 in both naturally aspirated and twin-turbo variants. A larger, 6.4-liter Hemi V8 good for about 450 horsepower is also on the way (but needed?). Fiat will provide four-cylinders and fuel-saving technology.

What remains unclear is why anyone will buy the upcoming products. Hopefully this will become much clearer when the products arrive.

Finalists have been announced for the ICOTY (International Car of the Year) award. Winners will be announced at NAIAS (the Detroit auto show) in January. A few dozen leading auto writers from various publications and websites vote, so advertising is not a factor in this one.

The car finalists:

1. Chevrolet Camaro

2. Ford Taurus

3. Hyundai Genesis

The truck finalists:

1. Chevrolet Equinox

2. Ford Transit Connect

3. Volvo XC60

I learned a few years ago, when the Saturn AURA won, that voting is heavily based on the significance of the car for its manufacturer and for the car market, and not just on what the car is like to look at and drive.

In the car category we have:

1. The first car Hyundai has produced that enthusiasts would want to drive.

2. The symbol of Ford’s (hoped for) resurgence. Journalists love to boost Ford these days. (Which will also help the Transit Connect.) The Taurus has been receiving so-so reviews, but so did the AURA.

3. A niche product that, while stylish and powerful, doesn’t point the way to the future of either GM or the car market in general.

So I think the odds of winning run in the above order.

Over in trucks, I see no chance for the XC60. The question, then, is whether a revolutionary (for North America) cargo can get the nod over a mainstream crossover that is far better than the one it replaced. Tough call, but if I have to pick one it’s the Equinox.

I used to think that journalists would avoid giving one manufacturer both wins. But then GM won both two years ago, so this isn’t a factor.

Today Chrysler officially announced that they will be splitting the Ram pickup away from the Dodge brand, and making “Ram” a separate brand. Pickuptruck.com has posted 5 reasons why it’s wrong to divorce Ram trucks from the Dodge brand. And they’re good ones, chiefly that Ram truck owners think of their trucks as Dodges and are the brand most loyal customers. Continue this line of reasoning, and it becomes clear that, while a split might make sense, Chrysler’s execution is all wrong.

The facts, as Chrysler understands them: people strongly associate the Dodge brand with trucks, and as a result Dodge’s cars get overshadowed. Meanwhile, they want to move Dodge cars away from the current macho positioning and towards new lifestyles or whatnot.

So they don’t want the Dodge brand to mean anything that it currently means.

In this case, why not let Dodge be trucks, and resurrect Plymouth or Eagle for the cars? If they’re starting from scratch with the Dodge brand anyway, why not start with a new or mothballed brand? This way they’d only have to build one new brand–a task with a low probability of success in the best of conditions–not two. They could work with Dodge’s current image rather than fighting it.

There’s simply no need to get rid of the bird they have in their hand in order to go after a second in the bush. With their current plan they risk ending up with no brands that mean anything.

I’ve long thought rust was a thing of the past. Rust prevention technology has gotten so good that I haven’t had a car with a rust problem since a decade-old 1985 Ford Escort. And even with the Escort rust wasn’t externally visible. I hardly ever see a car with visible rust around the Detroit suburbs, and those I do see are over a decade old.

Then a few months back I noticed that my 2003 Mazda Protege5 was rusting around the rear wheel openings and along the inside of the driver’s door, where the inner and outer panel are welded together.

Conducting the TrueDelta Car Reliability Survey, I’ve been receiving multiple reports of such rust with both the Protege and the Mazda3. As far as I can tell, neither model has sufficient rust protection for areas where the roads are salted. In some cases, rust has started within the warranty period.

People still remember how Hondas used to rust back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Now I’m wondering if Mazda’s rep is going to take a similar hit. Rust is worse than other problems–you can’t fix it merely by swapping out parts. It’s essentially cancer for cars. I’ve treated those areas I can get to, and repainted them. But this will probably be an annual procedure going forward. A shame, because these particular models are otherwise very durable.

The rust warranty lasts for five years–so it ended a year ago today for me. Called the dealer I bought the car from, and they essentially said I’m SOL. Especially since I haven’t been taking the car there for $30+ oil changes.

Which is about what I expected. Another thing I’ve learned by conducting this survey: with nearly all manufacturers, when the warranty is over, it’s over, even if an obvious engineering or manufacturing error is causing a widespread premature problem. You do get some chance of out-of-warranty assistance if you go to the dealer for all of your service–but I haven’t quite learned this lesson yet.

Would I have bought this car if I’d known it’d be rusting out within six years? As much as I like it, probably not.