Remember, this is about perceptions. Consumer Reports survey suggests buyers don't see differences between car companies Full report at http://www.consumerreports.org/cont...nds-consumer-perception-consumer-reports.html. It's interesting that Smart was ranked second in being "environmentally friendly/green". The '11 Smart ForTwo gets a 6/10 on the EPA air pollution score, even when selecting CA for the state. It's interesting that Fiat is 2nd from the bottom in "overall brand perception". Wow, Chrysler/Fiat have got their work cut out for them. I'm surprised that Mini is so low. Bummer for Infiniti and Mazda. I'm a bit puzzled by their low showing. Chevy gets a 92 while Infiniti and Mazda get 16??? Chevy's score of 92 is higher than BMW and Lexus!
As they state, it's all perception. Some of the cause could be traced to the recent and not so recent past for perception. Fiat was one of the worst reliable cars when it was offered here last. Mini suffered with bad auto transmissions in the early years. Infiniti had problems in differentials that also plagued some Nissans. I've dispersion against Mazda for having Ford parts, but that doesn't explain Ford being high. They might be seen as cheap. A sports car for people that can't afford real sports cars. Lexus, and Infiniti, can have the 'it's just a more expensive _______' tarnish. BMW has an expensive upkeep reputation. Smart cars are highly recyclable. Of course steel and aluminum is, but most automotive plastics aren't. Smart makes a point of saying about using recyclable plastics on their site.
There's a lot of truth to that. Once people get an opinion fixed in their head it can be damnably hard to shake unless they have significant personal experience to the contrary. People will even ignore/fail to see examples to the contrary that are right in front of their face and only be able to cite all the examples that support their opinion. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
I will agree that there are no real differences among many car manufacturers in that I wouldn't want any of their cars. Ford, GM, Fiat, VW, BMW, Hyundai..., no thanks. This I don't believe: "In fact, today's car buyer would be hard pressed to spend his or her money on a genuinely bad vehicle." I guess this guy never bought a Chrysler product. Of course words like "bad", "good", or "frequent" are subjective. Someone may consider 3 warranty trips to be "good" quality while others may perceive the same 3 trips as "bad" quality. It all depends on personal standards & how much the owner is willing to tolerate.
Funny, I've owned a couple Chryslers in my time and they were just fine. The crappiest car I ever owned was a Toyota Corolla. Crappiest car I ever road in was a Yugo. Crappiest car I ever drove was a Mercury. With the exception of the Yugo, I don't have any opinions I'd apply to ALL of those single car brands.
Compared to what was bad 10 to 20 years ago, this is true. Which is what CR was considering in one of the worst cars article they put out. When was the last time you or somebody you knew stranded in a new car?
Heh, I'm among the statistics. I actually believe (and been arguing) that most car brands are pretty much the same. Car quality has really been meshing together and the overwhelming majority of cars (from any major brands) normally gets at least 4/5 stars from the majority of people who drive them daily. Varying car quality will probably come more from what type of car (pick-up truck, sedan, sports, luxury, etc) than whether it's from Ford or Honda. Truthfully, I still prefer Toyota. Lower cost of ownership and, aside from that, they're the only company that has a car that gets 50MPG using regular fuel.
