Study: Gen Z very practical about cars

Posted on March 15, 2016March 15, 2016 by Michael

Autotrader / KBB surveyed Gen Z about cars and, as reported today to the Automotive Press Association, found dramatic differences between the responses of this group (12 to 17 years old) and those of 18-to-34-year-old “Milllennials.” While cars are often an image-driven purchase for Millennialls, who rate Audi as their favorite brand, they’re largely seen as transportation appliances by the younger group, which favors less expensive brands, primarily Chevrolet, Ford, and Honda.

Gen Z badly wants to have a car–even more than they want social media–but for freedom and convenience, not as a way to express their identities. According to Isabelle Helms, head of research and market intelligence at AT/KBB, for Gen Z “a car is a gateway to experience, it’s not the experience itself.” Given this focus, it’s not surprising that, when asked its priorities, Gen Z cares a great deal about affordability, safety, and fuel economy, but little about styling and brand image. While it’s notoriously difficult to get accurate responses to direct questions about the importance ascribed to styling and brand image, it’s telling that older generations expressed more interest in both when asked the same questions.

Helms attributes the differences in attitude to different formative experiences and parenting styles. Millennials were reared by helicopter parents who shielded them, and they emerged as optimists. In contrast, Gen Z’s parents have exposed them to the real world rather than sheltering them, and they’re emerging as realists rather than optimists. Then again, this group hasn’t started buying cars in significant numbers yet, and their attitudes could shift as car buying goes from a future possibility to an actual activity. But Isabelle Helms has seen attitudes remain constant for Millennials, who were also surveyed a few years ago, so she expects the same for Gen Z.

Am I being overly picky?

Posted on February 1, 2016February 1, 2016 by Michael

Chevrolet has upgraded the interior of its midsize Malibu sedan as part of a complete redesign for 2016. Some aspects of the interior I like a lot. An increasing number of cars, including the Kia Optima I examined last week, have stitching embedded in molded panels. If you think about it at all, this makes no sense, especially not if the molded panels are obviously molded panels, with no upholstery. Inside the new Malibu, the French-stitched areas–on the doors, on the face of the instrument panel, and (most unexpected and most welcome) on the sides of the center console–are actually upholstered. At night, ambient lighting abounds. Yet, despite this and the earth-tone two-tone, the new Malibu’s interior still leaves me cold. Why? Am I being overly picky?

To begin, the areas that aren’t upholstered, included the top of the instrument panel and the upper front sections of the door panels, are all too obviously hard plastic in their shape and in their sheen. Why are the door handle surrounds and the form that curves along the base of the A-pillars so chunky? They appear as if the design team made a rough cut in the clay, then decided it was good enough. (I first noticed this chunky theme in the 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, so its not new to the 2016 Malibu.)

Looking across the car, the joint between the upper and lower taupe-colored, hard plastic panels, just ahead of the arm rest, appears somehow wrong. Maybe I’d think differently if the panels weren’t the same color? Or is it the way the joint curves? Does it look odd to anyone else but me?

Another odd detail: the plastiwood trim around the lock and window buttons has a chrome ring around its perimeter, and then a rough-edged band of taupe hard plastic surrounds and extends a little higher than this chrome ring. Why are there so many pieces at so many different levels?

All of these I’d probably get used to. Then there’s the door pull. Formed of untextured hard plastic and widening from bottom to top, the door pull feels cheap and functions poorly. It’s neither easy nor comfortable to grasp. A stronger grip is needed to keep ones hand from slipping out. How did the designers overthink so many interior details, and put so little thought into the door pulls? They’re something people touch every single time they get into the car, and they are part of that critical first impression. It’s a shame, since as I noted much of the interior is very well designed and executed.

There’s no such problem with the trunk lid pull down handle, since there isn’t one. Either keep the exterior clean, or don’t wear white gloves.

So, should Chevrolet at least revise the door pulls, or am I being overly picky?

A feature I’d love to have on a car

Posted on January 26, 2016 by Michael

In too many cars the view forward is more constrained than I’d like. I’m not a fan of deep instrument panels, tall instrument panels, or low windshield headers. An increasing number of cars have at least two of these, and some have all three.

But what if the windshield could extend far back into the roof, as seen on this Citroen C3? Imagine how open the view forward would then seem. Opel, GM’s European branch, offered a similar windshield on a compact car. In North America, only Tesla offers such a windshield, on the new Model X crossover.

Though the Tesla is very expensive, its execution is simpler than the Citroen’s (details). There’s no extendable shade. Some sun visors that normally stow above the side windows can be pivoted 90 degrees and clipped into place. But these visors are fairly small and can’t cover much area.

In the Citroen, in contrast, more conventional sun visors are attached to movable section of ceiling. Don’t want sun on your head? You had move the ceiling forward to serve as a shade.

Or maybe I would like the Tesla approach is better, as you can then deploy a sun visor without covering up the clear roof. Perhaps tinting the roof eliminates any need for a shade? I’d love to be able to drive them both, to find out.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly at the 2016 Detroit Auto Show

Posted on January 15, 2016January 15, 2016 by Michael

Acura

Acura revealed the Precision concept. Though there’s virtually no chance that they’ll actually produce a car like it, hopefully Acura’s future production sedans borrow heavily from its styling and aggressively sporty character. Currently their styling is stodgy and boring and they don’t feel nearly as sporty as some past Acuras. cars more like this concept would get Acura back on car buyers’ radar. The woman standing near the hood in the above photo? She’s designed the exterior.

Audi

The new A4 is much like the old A4, just with leaner surfacing and highly configurable LCD instrumentation much like I recently enjoyed in the TT.

BMW

Maybe not here, either. The new M2, with a 365-horsepower engine, will likely be more fun to drive than any other current BMW. But the formula remains much the same as it has been.

Buick

Buick revealed a concept coupe, the Avista, that excited everyone with an interior at least as stylish as its exterior. It’s just a concept for now, but there’s a chance GM will decide to build it, or something like it. Could they possibly build a pillar-less hardtop, something GM hasn’t done in decades? One wouldn’t be a technical challenge, as the same platform is used for the Camaro convertible. But due to cost and other factors only Mercedes has offered such a car in recent memory.

Buick also displayed the Envision compact SUV, similar in size to the Acura RDX and Lincoln MKC. For what it is, it should be quite good. But it’s most notable for being imported from China.

Cadillac

This was my first opportunity to sit in the new CT6 sedan and XT5 crossover. I don’t care much for the exterior or interior styling of either. The CT6 exterior looks too plain, almost like a decade-old Toyota Avalon. The XT5’s face strikes me as ugly. Inside, both have instrument panels that appear under-designed in places. Plus the XT5 has a very tall, very deep dash–not good for the view forward. Luckily, they could drive much better than they look.

Chevrolet

Chevrolet displayed the Bolt electric vehicle, which was revealed the week before at CES. With a 200-mile range, quick acceleration, and an after-tax-credit price around $30,000, the Bolt could be the “EV for the masses” Tesla has been promising, but won’t deliver until much later. But the name sounds much like “Bolt,” and will cause much confusion.

Chevrolet also announced that the new Cruz would be offered as a hatchback as well as a sedan in North America. The car looks much better than the current Cruz, its interior could be the best in the class, and rear legroom is now competitive. I’m looking forward to testing this one. Hopefully Chevrolet later offers a performance variant to compete with the Focus ST.

Oh, I also sat in the new Camaro. In response to widespread complaints that the previous generation coupe was too hard to see out of, Chevrolet made the new one even harder to see out of. The windshield is little more than a slit.

Chrysler

Chrysler revealed a fully redesigned minivan. Both exterior and interior styling are much improved, if not quite as sporty as those of the Kia Sedona. The sliding door track is once again semi-concealed directly beneath the side window, which looks good but results in a smaller door opening. The new interior seemed roomier, but still not as roomy as the Odyssey and Sienna.

Innovative features include a rear seat entertainment system with two 10-inch screens and some built-in games, such as the license plate game and checkers. These can be played in one- or two-player mode. At first I thought this was merely a gimmick, but in practice it’s quite neat. The most puzzling thing about the new minivan: it will be called “Pacifica” rather than “Town & Country.”

Ford

Ford reveled an updated 2017 Fusion. A “all-new interior” is much like the old interior, but with a rotary shift knob. Additions to the line include a new Platinum trim level with interior materials worthy of a Lincoln and a 325-horsepower all-wheel-drive Sport variant. The latter could be a lot of fun to drive.

Genesis

Beginning with the 2017 model year, Hyundai will sell its upscale cars under a separate Genesis brand. The current Genesis, an excellent luxury sedan for the money, will become the G80. Genesis revealed the new G90, which replaces the Equus. Though the styling is a bit stodgy, and the interior is perhaps a generation behind Mercedes in styling and features, it will likely be a very good car for what it costs, if not quite the near-bargain the G80 is. A 365-horsepower turbocharged 3.3-liter V6 will replace the current 311-horsepower 3.8-liter V6. A 420-horsepower V8 will still be offered, and with all-wheel drive as well as rear-wheel drive, but won’t make much sense given the new, nearly as powerful, far more efficient V6.

GMC

GMC revealed the 2017 Acadia. The crossover seems well-executed, with comfortable seating in the first two rows. But, about the same size as a Toyota Highlander, it’s much smaller than the 2007-2016 Acadia. Towing capacity is 4,000 rather than 5,200 lbs. GMC sold 96,000 Acadias last year. Will these people, many of whom were attracted by the current vehicle’s size, be willing to trade for something much smaller? Especially if gas remains under $2, this seems a risky move, perhaps the riskiest of the show.

Honda

Honda revealed a second-generation Ridgeline pickup. Overall, I like the concept of a car-like pickup for people who don’t need a hardcore truck. The bed includes many innovative features. But the styling does nothing for me. I especially don’t like the cut-line added between the cab and the bad to make it look like they might be separate, and thus like those of a conventional pickup. Unlike the first Ridgeline, this one will be offered with front-wheel drive as well as with rear-wheel drive.

Infiniti

Infiniti revealed the new G60 coupe. Stylish, but an evolution of previous G coupes, no surprises. As seems to be becoming the luxury car norm, the top engine will be a 400-horsepower turbocharged 3.0-liter V6.

Lexus

Lexus surprised everyone by announcing that it would be producing 2012’s LF-LC concept with minimal changes as the 2017 LC 500. Everyone loves the styling, and most even think the spindle grille works in this context. Personally, I don’t get too excited about cars that will sell in small numbers for prices in the six figures.

Lincoln

Lincoln revealed the production version of the 2017 continental. Compared to the concept revealed last year, the production car has flatter body sides, with less flare to their fenders, and a consequently stodgier appearance. Most auto writers seemed mildly disappointed. One downside surprise: passengers over 5-11 could find rear headroom insufficient. Highly adjustable front seats are a plus, though, and I was pleased to see that door handles integrated into the belt line trim made the transition to production. The engine will be a 400-horsepower turbocharged 3.0–liter V6.

This was also my first chance to see the updated 2017 MKZ sedan. My least favorite part of the interior, the plastic facing for the center stack and center console, has been replaced by what looks and feels like real corrugated aluminum. A huge improvement, especially in the Black Label interior. The MKZ will also be available with the new 400-horsepower engine.

Mercedes-Benz

Mercedes-Benz revealed the new E-Class. It’s much like the latest C-Class and S-Class, just between them in size. So the exterior styling is tasteful and the interior seems packed full of the latest and greatest materials and electronics. No one can pack an interior with visual punch the way Mercedes can lately; the cars look and feel at least as expensive as they are inside. Audi interiors can still be more artful, but their style is more subtle.

Mercedes also displayed the new S-Class cabriolet. A huge convertible, it nevertheless has a tight rear seat. It looks and feels like big money, though, which is perhaps the entire point. Check out these seats.

Toyota

This was my first chance to see the redesigned 2016 Prius in person. Technically it might be excellent, but I find the exterior unattractive and the interior cheap. If the new Chevrolet Volt proves reliable, I’d much prefer it.

Volvo

Volvo displayed the new S90 sedan. Much like the new XC90, just in sedan form, virtually everyone loved it. Very stylish in the tasteful Swedish way, with a warm, luxurious, tech-filled interior.

Free memberships–in need of a tweak?

Posted on January 6, 2016 by Michael

During the first week of the survey this month members responded for 14,711 cars. This broke the previous record–by three cars.

As encouraging as this is, I feel far more members should be participating, and have been giving a lot of thought to how to make this happen. People sometimes tell me they respond as a favor to me, and this is neither accurate–since the purpose of the site is to help as many people as possible, not me personally–nor do I expect it to be much of a motivator. Would it help if people had a stronger sense of how their responses help other members? If so, how can we provide this sense?

We’ve had a testimonials page for years, but few people visit it. Plus I’m often the one who is thanked. Members aren’t thanking each other, which is what really needs to happen. What might we add to the site to enable and encourage this?

I also understand that more people need to feel a stronger benefit from the site, and we’ll continue to make improvements to it. Among other things, we intend to present our information in a clearer, simpler form for people who don’t have the time to dig into all of the details we provide, while providing as much detail as possible to those who appreciate it.

Finally, it might be time to re-examine how we structure memberships. We absolutely intend to keep providing anyone who helps provide the site’s information each quarter with a free membership. But far too many people agree to help with the survey to get a free membership, use the site, then never participate. This isn’t fair to those who do take the time to participate, and doesn’t exactly motivate me to keep putting in the insane hours I put in each week.

When something is given away so easily and freely, people might be less likely to see any value in it, and thus be less likely to participate. Which reduces the benefits for everyone. One possibility: restricting new free memberships to people referred by existing members. But if we did this, would enough members refer their friends and family? Might being able to get others free memberships become a tangible benefit of being a member, if it cost money to join otherwise? After all, giving someone a gift that is free to anyone anyway isn’t much of a gift.

Your thoughts?

Post-purchase unpleasant surprises: seats

Posted on December 8, 2015 by Michael

People often ask why TrueDelta doesn’t survey owner satisfaction. Well, owner satisfaction is a very tricky thing to measure, especially if you do not have a random sample (which we don’t), because of the role played by expectations. If a car is very good, but buyers expected it to be even better, it won’t score well. If a car has some obvious flaws, but buyers knew about these going in, it can still score very well. Sales duds like the much-reviled Pontiac Aztek have a tendency to score very well on satisfaction surveys because they were only purchased by people who cared most about whatever they happen to be good at. Which leads to the question: what aspects of a car are most likely to vary from expectations? One candidate: seats.

As discussed in an early blog post, seats can be difficult to evaluate during a test drive, especially during the typical brief one. Some seat issues only become apparent after an hour or more on the road. Plus it’s not possible to rely on reviewers’ impressions, as different people are sized and shaped differently, and will consequently have different impressions. More than any other aspect of the car, seats must be evaluated by the buyer.

The solutions suggested in the earlier piece remain valid, but little practiced. You can request an extended test drive from the dealer. If they think you’re serious, many will let you take the car for a day. If this isn’t possible, try renting the car. The problem with this is that many car models are not available to rent.

The most and least reliable cars in our survey

Posted on November 29, 2015November 29, 2015 by Michael

My previous post included the models with the lowest reported repair frequencies for each model year. As noted in that past, this wasn’t entirely fair. Other models are close, and given sampling error and the meaninglessness of small differences are essentially just as reliable. So here’s a list of all models (among those we received at least 25 responses for) that required at most one-quarter (2010-2015) or at most one-third (2006-2009) of the repairs of the average car.

2015: Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Highlander, Subaru Forester, Subaru Impreza / XV Crosstrek, Buick Enclave / Chevrolet Traverse / GMC Acadia, Nissan Rogue

2014: Toyota Corolla, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, BMW Q5 TDI, Kia Soul

2013: Toyota Camry, Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Prius v, Honda Fit, Infiniti G37, Mercedes C-Class, Toyota 4Runner, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius, BMW 1-Series, Chevrolet Camaro

2012: Toyota Highlander, Toyota Prius, Mazda5, Honda Accord

2011: Toyota Prius, Toyota Venza, Mazda3, Honda CR-Z

2010: Honda CR-V, Honda Insight

Hardly any cars over six years old are under one-quarter the increasingly high average. At most one-third the average:

2009: Ford Fusion / Lincoln MKZ / Mercury Milan

2008: Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima

2007: Toyota Camry (4 cyl), Toyota Tundra

2006: Mazda MX-5 Miata, Honda Ridgeline

And the least reliable, with at least double the average repair frequency:

2015: Lincoln MKC, Tesla Model S, Mercedes C-Class, BMW i3, Porsche Macan, Jeep Grand Cherokee

2014: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Fiat 500L, Chevrolet Corvette, VW Passat TDI, Ford Fiesta

2013: Dodge Dart 1.4, VW Passat TDI, Infiniti JX, Tesla Model S

2012: Mini Countryman, Chevrolet Sonic, Chevrolet Cruze

2011: BMW X5 / X6, Buick Regal, Buick Enclave / Chevrolet Traverse / GMC Acadia

2010: Buick Enclave / Chevrolet Traverse / GMC Acadia / Saturn Outlook, VW CC, Chevrolet Equinox / GMC Terrain

2009: VW Tiguan, Buick Enclave / Chevrolet Traverse / GMC Acadia / Saturn Outlook

2008: Chevrolet TrailBlazer / GMC Envoy

2007: BMW X3

2006: None — the average is now nearly three times that for 2015s

One thing I hadn’t previously realized: once cars are over six years of age much fewer qualify for either list. There are far fewer models that have ultra-low repair frequencies. And the average becomes so high that few are twice this average, either.

How often do cars require repairs as they age?

Posted on November 29, 2015November 29, 2015 by Michael

Before TrueDelta, nearly all publicly available car reliability information was relative to the average. While “better than average” certainly seemed preferable to “worse than average,” one key piece of information wasn’t provided: how high (or low) was the average? Did the average car require one repair per year? Two? More? No one without insider status knew. To fix this, I started TrueDelta a decade ago. So, what have we learned?

The 37th set of results covered the year that ended September 30, 2015. The minimum, maximum, and average repair frequency for the past 15 model years, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year:

Model Year	Number of Models	Minimum Repair Frequency	Maximum Repair Frequency	Average Repair Frequency
2015	50	0 (Civic, Camry, RAV4)	80 (MKC)	22
2014	62	0 (Corolla, Prius)	66 (Grand Cherokee)	24
2013	87	0 (Camry, Prius v, Tacoma)	76 (Dart w/ 1.4T)	29
2012	70	3 (Highlander)	109 (Countryman)	33
2011	67	3 (Prius)	81 (X5, X6)	34
2010	57	3 (CR-V)	83 (Enclave, Traverse, Acadia)	36
2009	49	15 (Fusion)	117 (Tiguan)	46
2008	68	5 (Camry)	101 (TrailBlazer, Envoy)	50
2007	62	14 (Camry 4 cyl.)	118 (X3)	57
2006	49	11 (MX-5 Miata*, Ridgeline)	112 (TrailBlazer, Envoy)	59
2005	29	15 (Tundra)	138 (Escalade, Tahoe, Yukon)	61
2004	24	42 (TL, TSX)	115 (Grand Cherokee)	68
2003	26	36 (Z4*, Vibe, Matrix, Camry)	163 (Golf diesel, Jetta diesel)	76
2002	17	47 (Boxster*, F-150)	137 (S60, V70)	81
2001	12	47 (Z3*, Accord)	123 (Golf, Jetta)	81

I’ve included the models with the best and worst stats for each year, but it must be noted that we don’t have stats for many models (especially for cars over ten years old). Even among those with stats (click for complete ranking), quite a few are usually close to the minimum, and are thus virtually as reliable as those listed. At the other end of the scale, there are often some other models near each maximum. The asterisks indicate sports cars, many of which are not driven much. Finally, realize that during the first few years most problems are minor. (I’ll discuss the percentage of repairs that affect key systems, and how this percentage increases as cars age, in a future post.)

Some observations:

1. No surprise, the repair frequency steadily increases as cars age.

2. The average car now has about a one-in-four chance of a repair each year during the warranty period. For someone like myself who’s been around for a little while, this seems amazing. The question didn’t used to be whether a car would need something fixed in its first year, but how many things.

3. The best car models are now likely to require no repairs at all during their first three years of ownership. A few remain nearly problem-free for twice that long.

4. Even the worst car models don’t often average over one repair trip per year until they’re about six years old. The overall average also jumps at that point, to about double the new car average. This happens to be about the time most CPO (certified pre-owned) and extended warranties expire.

5. At about the same time the odds of requiring a repair with one of the most reliable car models stops being near zero.

6. Still, the best car models remain more reliable than the average new car until they’re about 11 years old. It seems that even in these “tanks” some parts are engineered to last a decade.

7. At about the same time the average car requires repairs about as often as the least reliable nearly new cars.

See something else? Leave a comment.

Now that you have the actual repair frequencies, and not just vague notions of how a given car model compares to the average, what sort of odds are you comfortable with? Do these numbers make you more or less likely to insist on a car that’s much better than average? Do they affect how old of a car you’d be comfortable with, and if so how much?

Check the stats for other car models

What…is your favorite color?

Posted on November 21, 2015November 21, 2015 by Michael

On Facebook you can find a fan group for just about any car color. I initially joined the Brown Car Appreciation Society thinking it was meant in jest. But this group’s love for brown is quite genuine. Truth be told, my personal allegiance is most with the Blue Car Appreciation Society.

Yet I haven’t owned a blue car in over a decade. Instead I’ve driven a series of red cars, beginning with a Mazda Protege I bought new. The dark blue on that car was a bit dull, the bright blue too bright. Neither really suited the car’s lines. One or both wasn’t available with leather. I ended up with a classic bright red exterior / black leather interior combo. A Lexus GS 400 and a Mazda RX-8 Shinka were initially purchased by my father. In the case of the latter, I suggested that the RX-8 looked best in either the copper red metallic offered only on the Shinka or the aurora blue mica offered on the later R3. My father didn’t care for the seats in the R3, and bought a red Shinka. Our family hauler is technically a light green, but looks gray more than anything else. I’d have preferred another color, but it was the cheapest Ford Taurus X Limited in the country at the time, and only an hour away.

But I digress. What about you? Do you have a favorite car color? If so, how committed to it are you? Is you current car this color? Have all your cars been this color?

Nvidia’s “deep neural network” for autonomous driving

Posted on November 19, 2015November 19, 2015 by Michael

Nvidia, initially a manufacturer of personal computer graphics cards, has been emerging as a leading provider of hardware and software for autonomous driving. Most, maybe all, of the companies developing autonomous cars have been purchasing hardware from Nvidia, Tesla most vocally. This Nvidia Drive PX circuit board, which became available to auto makers and their suppliers last May, includes two very powerful processors (capable of 2.3 teraflops), twelve camera inputs, and a radar input. The cost? Apparently $10,000, but at this stage it’s intended for use in R&D, not in production cars.

Installed in development vehicles, this system is designed as a “deep neural network” that continuously refines its ability to identify objects and situations. This system extends well beyond an individual car. What each unit learns, and especially its mistakes along the way, will be relayed automatically to Nvidia, which will use this data to continually improve the code, which will then be transferred to the cars in over-the-air (OTA) updates.

So are you excited, or scared?