2007 Vehicle Initial Quality Rankings (JDPower) ***MERGED THREADS***
#31
Well done to Mercedes for improving in IQS. The LS held the #1 spot in the IQS for 10 consecutive years, this year the LS 460 is #2 to the S-Class. Perhaps first-year issues?
Overall Lexus is #2 again for the second year, behind Porsche. They have been #2 since the new IQS survey methodology was used.
Overall Lexus is #2 again for the second year, behind Porsche. They have been #2 since the new IQS survey methodology was used.
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of you are dismissing these ratings as unimportant (perhaps because they aren't favorable for Lexus), and I disagree. I think that plenty of things can go wrong in the first three months of ownership- certainly enough to put a bad taste in someone's mouth- and I find that plenty important. Whether Lexus is slipping, the competition is improving, or a combination of both, I think that these findings are significant.
The LS 460 has wind noise and a few other surfacing issues.
The IS has excessive brake dust and brake squeal. The pads to solve brake dust squeak, and the pads that don't squeak are really dusty. Lexus has no real fix here. There have also been plenty of rattles and squeaks that customers are complaining about.
The ES is having transmission issues, many of which are having to be repaired, and the car also has countless rattles and interior concerns.
The GS has also suffered from it's fair share of dash creaks and rattles.
Considering that all of these issues show up within the first few hundred or thousand miles of ownsership, I'm not really surprised that Lexus did not place at the top.
The LS 460 has wind noise and a few other surfacing issues.
The IS has excessive brake dust and brake squeal. The pads to solve brake dust squeak, and the pads that don't squeak are really dusty. Lexus has no real fix here. There have also been plenty of rattles and squeaks that customers are complaining about.
The ES is having transmission issues, many of which are having to be repaired, and the car also has countless rattles and interior concerns.
The GS has also suffered from it's fair share of dash creaks and rattles.
Considering that all of these issues show up within the first few hundred or thousand miles of ownsership, I'm not really surprised that Lexus did not place at the top.
Sure, a few things can go wrong in the first few months, but the first several months of a vehicle's life is a very misleading indicator of quality, no matter how you want to define quality. A survey that measures quality over several years is much more useful and accurate.
Your mention of some of the issues new Lexus models have had doesn't really prove a whole lot. All new vehicles, no matter what brand, have problems. Nothing is perfect, yet it seems as if you are almost implying Lexus *should* be perfect. If in fact you are criticizing Lexus for not being perfect, that's rather silly if you ask me.
The original LS had some issues when it came out, as did every other Lexus model when it came out.
#33
Good and bad news for Ford. It's good to see Ford improving on IQS. But did anyone else catch the part about the Ford Wixom plant receiving the Platinum Award? Ford just closed their Wixom plant (May 31.) It seems to me Ford should consider moving production of some of their other vehicles to their "best" plant as oppose to closing it. But hey I guess that's "The Way Forward Plan."
#34
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
A bit of a flawed assumption. Many of us have dismissed initial quality surveys even when Toyota and Lexus scored very well. Even in this case, Lexus scored very well right behind Porsche, and yet I still dismiss these results.
Sure, a few things can go wrong in the first few months, but the first several months of a vehicle's life is a very misleading indicator of quality, no matter how you want to define quality. A survey that measures quality over several years is much more useful and accurate.
Your mention of some of the issues new Lexus models have had doesn't really prove a whole lot. All new vehicles, no matter what brand, have problems. Nothing is perfect, yet it seems as if you are almost implying Lexus *should* be perfect. If in fact you are criticizing Lexus for not being perfect, that's rather silly if you ask me.
The original LS had some issues when it came out, as did every other Lexus model when it came out.
Sure, a few things can go wrong in the first few months, but the first several months of a vehicle's life is a very misleading indicator of quality, no matter how you want to define quality. A survey that measures quality over several years is much more useful and accurate.
Your mention of some of the issues new Lexus models have had doesn't really prove a whole lot. All new vehicles, no matter what brand, have problems. Nothing is perfect, yet it seems as if you are almost implying Lexus *should* be perfect. If in fact you are criticizing Lexus for not being perfect, that's rather silly if you ask me.
The original LS had some issues when it came out, as did every other Lexus model when it came out.
#35
Lexus Champion
WOW, VERY, VERY, VERY Interesting. The Auto Industry is changing(@ least in Initial Quality lol). Well some have stayed about the same some have changed considerably.. we will see on the long term reliability but im thinking most of these high ranked makes will hold up fairly well over time.
Last edited by JAC JZS; 06-06-07 at 04:47 PM.
#36
A bit of a flawed assumption. Many of us have dismissed initial quality surveys even when Toyota and Lexus scored very well. Even in this case, Lexus scored very well right behind Porsche, and yet I still dismiss these results.
Sure, a few things can go wrong in the first few months, but the first several months of a vehicle's life is a very misleading indicator of quality, no matter how you want to define quality. A survey that measures quality over several years is much more useful and accurate.
Sure, a few things can go wrong in the first few months, but the first several months of a vehicle's life is a very misleading indicator of quality, no matter how you want to define quality. A survey that measures quality over several years is much more useful and accurate.
#38
Lexus Champion
Although I place a much higher value on JD Power's VDS then their IQS, the IQS is still a factor to consider. If a vehicle or make scores horribly on the IQS, what does that say about it's potential long-term reliability? If you can't get the initial quality right, I definitely don't have the confidence in that vehicle's long term reliability.
EXACTLY
#40
I guess they were tired of being bashed all the time for reliability.
#41
Although I place a much higher value on JD Power's VDS then their IQS, the IQS is still a factor to consider. If a vehicle or make scores horribly on the IQS, what does that say about it's potential long-term reliability? If you can't get the initial quality right, I definitely don't have the confidence in that vehicle's long term reliability.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2006133
#42
Well said, F1Driver. Porsche was #1 last year as well, since JD Power changed their survey methodology. Overall, Lexus stayed the same at #2; if the old methodology was used they would still be #1.
#43
Actually initial quality and long-term reliability are not directly related. For example, Porsche have consisently placed #1 in IQS but have consisently rated below the industry standard in VDS.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2006133
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2006133
Let's take a look at some samples from JD Power's 2003 IQS and compare it to the same company's 2006 VDS. Here's your top 10 2003 IQS makers. Only one, Porshe, did not perform well 3 years down the line on the VDS. The other 9 are still in the top 10 in VDS.
Maker 2003 IQS 2006 VDS
Lexus 1 1
Cadillac 2 4
Infiniti 3 10
Acura 4 6
Buick 5 3
Mercury 6 2
Porshe 7 22
BMW 8 9
Toyota 9 5
Jaguar 10 8
Here's your bottom 10 in 2003 IQS.
Maker 2003 IQS 2006 VDS
Subaru 27 16
Jeep 28 26
Mazda 29 21
Mitsu 30 25
Saturn 31 31
Saab 32 36
Mini 33 29
Kia 34 34
LRover 35 37
Hummer 36 33
Of the bottom dwellers, Subaru and Mazda made it to the middle of the pack, but still below average. The rest were still rather poor performing. Looks to me that how you perform in IQS is a good indication, even though they do not directly relate, on how you will perform in the long term reliability.
This is admittedly a small data set but from my memory is pretty consistent.
#44
Actually initial quality and long-term reliability are not directly related. For example, Porsche have consisently placed #1 in IQS but have consisently rated below the industry standard in VDS.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2006133
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2006133
#10 in 2004 VDS and #4 in the 2003 VDS.
http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pr...asp?ID=2005089
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2004055
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/new...spx?ID=2003050
Not knowing for sure, but my speculation is that Porshe's poor showing in 2006 was a result of the 2003 Cayennes.
Last edited by RX300-BV; 06-06-07 at 05:55 PM.
#45
Pole Position
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Carson, California currently in Makati City, PI
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts