Ford passes Toyota in vehicle quality rankings

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 6 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]456789[/snapback]</div>

Wow!! If it's true, good for them!!

 

Ford has come a long way.

 

That would be impressive!

We bought a Ford Ranger back in 1996 and brought it home. The next day it wouldn't run. One of the hoses had split, and needed to be replaced. The dealer didn't have it in stock, so for about 4 days after we bought it we couldn't even drive it! Nice to know they've improved.

 

toyota did have a pretty bad year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 6 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]456789[/snapback]</div>

Uh Oh, I'm sure this won't last long.

come on Toyota pick up the pace!

 

This is what I saw on the Yahoo report of this story.

Is that a typo? 100 problems per 100 vehicles is an IMPROVEMENT? How can this be? Even 94 per 100 is atrocious; I can't help thinking this must be incorrect. And yet it is correct - I see that the industry average for the year was 125/100.

These numbers just seem so...wrong! I've owned 6 Toyotas and never had ANY problems with them in initial quality. So I guess there must be lots of lemons out there with 5-10 things wrong with them right off the lot.

 

Not a typo, it's called Advertising, guerilla advertising to be exact, planted by Ford. Ford is taking aim at Toyota, they've been rivals for more than 15 years (Camry vs. Taurus).

Ford is on the brink of announcing "The New 2008 Taurus" and this is one way to set it up.

Sorry Ford, you're nowhere near the reliability of ANY Japanese car manufacturer. But keep on trying!

-wiiprii

 

Yeah, I ain't buyin' it.
.
_H*

 

Glad to see a U.S. car manufacturer making strides. Just wish they would pay closer attention to making cars that get higher gas mileage though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 6 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]456789[/snapback]</div>

Good for Ford, but don't make too much of this.

I just filled out that JD Power initial quality survey for my Mazda a couple of months ago, and that survey is kind of an odd beast. My recollection is that it asks if anything was outright broken and needed to be fixed/adjusted, and asks if you were disappointed with any of the features of the car. In excruciating detail. Fundamentally, the "initial quality" survey asks how happy you are with your brand-new car. Maybe I'm easy to please, but I think I gave my new car 100%: nothing was broken, and it is in fact the car I thought I was buying. I expect a lot of people do the same. Which makes it difficult to interpret small difference in average "initial quality".

To me, the right answer to a car quality survey is "ask me at 100,000 miles", but that's not what that survey is about.

 

Ford has come a long way; but not far enough.

 

I've been a subscriber of Consumer Reports for at least 15 years. IIRC, Toyota and Honda have consistently placed at or near the top of CR's reliability rankings.

I would rather have a vehicle with a high degree of reliability than one with high initial quality.

 

My sister bought a new Ford Explorer and finally had Ford buy it back under the lemon law. Her transmission was shot in less than a year. I had a VW Jetta for 5 years and would not recommend Volkswagen either -- almost $2,400 worth of repairs after the warranty was over. I also had an Acura Integra and had only a $300 cracked radiator repair in the 7 years and 250,000 miles I owned the car.

Japanese all the way folks, there is just no comparison.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Jun 6 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]456895[/snapback]</div>

This is Initial Quality, this is not a reliability or a longevity measure by any means. Its total concerns owners have. So, needing more cupholders is one problem, not liking the instrument display is another. Its based on brand new vehicles and is not really indicitive of reliability. Its a "are you satisfied with your new car" figure.

Wait for the 5 year dependability numbers for that. JD Power does that too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SW03ES @ Jun 6 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]457046[/snapback]</div>

I thought I read that JD Power 'tweaked' the IQ bias to make it even more cup-holder centric.

As I recall, lots of people were up in arms that so much weight was being given to whether people like the interior color scheme and the texure of the dash instead of considering things that most of us probably equate more with 'quality' like reliability.

Thus, when counting the number of 'defects' in this particular survey, the cup-holder that won't hold your mega-gulp counts the same as leaving your transmission on the pavement at the stop light.

I need to go dig, but I remember that when asked about why they changed the metrics, their answer was something like:

"Well, you know all cars are pretty much reliable for the first 90 days, so it wouldn't be very interesting survey if everyone with within .01% of each other"

So, if you broaden your definition of 'defect' you can increase the spread in the results, which is much more interesting to report.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hmm money must have changed hands somewhere..... <_< :mellow:

 

My 2000 "Ford" (well it was a Volvo, but they're the same now) was fine the day I brought it home. I loved it. And then it started eating halogen headlights every few WEEKS ("it's a high voltage system, that's normal"), and the the seatbelt broke (under warranty, but a PITA), and then the stereo died in under a year (also warranty), and then a recall, and then it started burning oil at 35K miles....... then I traded the sucker in.

All I've done for my Prius in 2 years is routine maint and the steering recall.

 

1995 Mercury Grand Marquis, 120K on it, still runs fine, only problem that we have with it is the window regulator broke from non use, the one time it was used the cable jumped the track, not really a ford issue, just age.

2000 Mercury Grand Marquis, just over 100K on it, haven't done a thing to it, does need a new keypad for the door locks, someone scratched the plastic and it got wet, again, not a Ford issue.

2001 Crown Vic Sport 130K miles on it, other than ball joint, again normal wear items, havent had a problem with it, and it is first generation Sport model.

1999 F350 Early 99 built april 98. 132K miles on it, it has had some work done on it, front hubs and ball joint, Ford has improved on that part in later years, but overall it is a good solid truck, one I have no concerns hauling my horses and family across the country in, something I would be hard pressed to say about any Toyota or Nissan truck. I drove it hard, and used it for what it was built for, a truck, hauling heavy loads, pulling heavy trailers. It has been very reliable for me, only once did it not start, it was -10 below and I had parked it outside without plugging it in. The glow plugs were worn after 7 years of use. Plugged it in, 4 hours later it fired right up.

Previous cars,

1992 Crown Vic, best car I ever owned, loved how it handled, but it got old and started to rust, It again was first generation of the new design, so it had some issues.

1997 Explorer, never once had a problem with it, it did need some help in the suspension department, it wasnt really made to handle a trailer. Personally though I hated it, and will never own another stupid user vehicle.

1979 Ford LTD station wagon, 300K miles, only reason I got rid of it was rust, the frame rotted. It too was first generation of a redesign, it had problems, just like all cars did back then, even the Jap cars had issues then.

Ford has always made decent vehicles, just not the ones most people bought. The CrownVic/Grand Marquis cars have always been reliable safe cars, they are just too big for most people(in their minds), so most of the cars sold were the smaller ones, which IMO were junk. Ford trucks have always been reliable, and being that they were, and still are the top selling trucks, that says a lot(real trucks, not the small truck wannabes like ranger).

Toyota has not always been high quality, Back in 1985 Toyota and chevy got together and sold the Novarolla, basically a chevy badged Corolla, identical to the corolla. I had two of them, the first one would not stay on the road, if you took your hand off the wheel, you veered to the left, even on a high crowned road, could not be fixed, traded it for a 1986 of the same type, it was better, but had issues, quality wasnt the best, but it was a cheap car.

If Ford gets their act together with the rest of their products like they did with the Fusion, Ford can surpass Toyota and Honda in the quality department. Their Escape Hybrid uses similar technology to the Prius system, though it is still a new release and the verdict isnt out yet on reliability, they have a good chance of getting ahead in that department as well.

I can tell you this, I will never own another Dodge/Chrysler, or GM vehicle, I have had nothing but bad news on any of them I have owned. The Honda's we had were both very good cars, but lacked things that the Fords had that we were looking for in a car, like room for the passengers. As for reliability, Toyota does win there, you really cant go wrong buying a Toyota car. If Ford comes out with a vehicle that fits my needs and gets good fuel economy, I will be there to buy it, I have never had a Ford let me down where I would get rid of it and never look back. I have had fuel pumps fail, but fuel pumps fail on Toyota too, I had a Celica that the fuel pump failed on. Aside from the Fuel pumps, not one of the Fords let me down. As far as quality on the Prius, it has issues, the plastic inside scratches really easy, I have scratches on the center console and door panels, and we have been very careful with it, we like to make the cars last a long time. The paint is very thin and scratches really easy too. If I compare the Prius with the crown vic, the Vic wins in quality hands down, you can beat the crap out of the vic and it still cleans up nice. Same goes for the F350, the only interior peice that has issues is the knob on the passenger seat for the lumber, more due to poor design than quality, the seat belt gets hooked on it, and broke the knob off. After 9 years, the paint and interior are still in good shape, there is some wear on the drivers seat, but after 130k miles and 9 years, that is to be expected. None of the plastic interior pieces, dash, door panels, etc are scratched or cracked. The 95 G M does have some quality issues, the closing strap on the drivers door broke loose, but was easily fixed, just used a bolt where the rivet broke, the radio sucks royally, but that is it, the rest has remained in very good condition after 12 years. Even the paint is in good shape, has a nice shine to it, too bad my mom smashed up the drivers side and no longer wants to drive it. It has sat in the drive for two years now and taking its toll on it with some rust underneath, I need to replace a rusted out brake line.

Seriously, dont be shocked if Ford starts taking the lead, they do make good cars, just not all of them are good.

 

Awww, crap! Looks like I'd better trade in my Toyotas for a couple of Fords...

Honestly, the only thing I've ever really noticed with Fords is the amount of nickel and dime parts that build up as they get older. I had a 1991 Continental. Great car, except small parts kept failing on it! It lived up to its namesake (although it was a Lincoln, I still think of it as a Ford): Fix or Repair Daily; Found on Road Dead (it DIED while I was driving it(!)); Driver Returns On Foot (again, because it died). Wound up trading it in for a 1994 Toyota Pickup.

Good on Ford for building quality cars and trucks. Hopefully they'll change their act and shift from building trucks to building cars. Their quality is up; let's see their fuel economy match it.