encore888

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.

TRDFantasy

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.

RX300-BV

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."

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

I am not saying that Lexus is doing poorly, in fact over the long term I still believe that our cars are mechanically and electronically superior to their competitors. What I am saying, is that Lexus is suffering more nagging quality issues than they have previously on new models.

JAC JZS

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.

RX300-BV

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.

E-Z ES300

Not suprized Lexus was up on top, but porsche? Number one?!?! That was a suprize...

JAC JZS

EXACTLY

JAC JZS

Cayenne excepted Porsches been ~ #1 for a while

F1Driver

You mean initial quality not reliability. Initial quality = how well things are screwed together. Reliability = do things work.

F1Driver

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

encore888

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.

RX300-BV

Yes they are not directly related. A good showing in IQS does not translate into a good showing in VDS. However, it is still an indicator. You will normally see a company that scores well in IQS usually does score well in VDS. But you do not often see a real poor IQS coupled with a real good VDS.

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.

RX300-BV

Not even true. Yes Porshe performed poorly in VDS 2006 but was #2 in the 2005 VDS. Porshe was also
#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.

rsantiago

Good point, I think we should give Benz the benefit of the doubt, at least it's a good sign that there serious about improving quality.