Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

2015 JD Power Initial Quality Index

Old 06-17-15, 08:54 PM
  #1  
pbm317
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
 
pbm317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,888
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Default 2015 JD Power Initial Quality Index

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 17 June 2015 — With a significant year-over-year improvement, Korean brands continue to widen the quality gap with other automakers, while Japanese makes collectively fall below industry average for the first time in 29 years, according to the J.D. Power 2015 U.S. Initial Quality StudySM (IQS) released today.

The study examines problems experienced by vehicle owners during the first 90 days of ownership. Initial quality is determined by the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality.

The industry experiences a 3 percent year-over-year improvement in initial quality, averaging 112 PP100 compared with 116 PP100 in 2014.

Historic Shifts in Performance by Brand Origin

Korean brands lead the industry in initial quality by the widest margin ever, averaging 90 PP100, which is an 11 PP100 improvement from 2014. For the first time in the study, European brands (113 PP100) surpass Japanese brands (114 PP100), while domestic makes (114 PP100) equal the Japanese for only a second time.

Although Japanese brands overall experience a 2 PP100 improvement from 2014, this has proven insufficient to keep pace with the industry, causing Japanese makes overall to fall below industry average for the first time in the 29-year history of the U.S. Initial Quality Study. Only four of the 10 Japanese brands included in the study post an improvement.

“This is a clear shift in the quality landscape,” said Renee Stephens, vice president of U.S. automotive quality at J.D. Power. “For so long, Japanese brands have been viewed by many as the gold standard in vehicle quality. While the Japanese automakers continue to make improvements, we’re seeing other brands, most notably Korean makes, really accelerating the rate of improvement. Leading companies are not only stepping up the pace of improvements on existing models, but are also working up front to launch vehicles with higher quality and more intuitive designs.”

Technology Continues to be a Trouble Spot for the Industry

Entertainment and connectivity systems remain the most problem-prone area for a third consecutive year, with voice recognition and Bluetooth pairing continuing to top the problem list.
The majority of models included in the study that have voice recognition systems experience 10 or more PP100 related to this feature.
The number of owners who indicate having voice recognition in their new vehicle has increased to 67 percent in 2015 from 57 percent in 2013. Based on results from the J.D. Power 2015 U.S. Tech Choice Study,SM this will continue to increase as simple wireless device and near field communication are the top two entertainment/connectivity technologies consumers indicate wanting on their next vehicle.
“Smartphones have set high consumer expectations of how well technology should work, and automakers are struggling to match that success in their new vehicles,” said Stephens. “However, we are seeing some OEMs make important improvements along the way. What’s clear is that they can’t afford to wait for the next generation of models to launch before making important updates to these systems.”

Highest-Ranked Nameplates and Models

Porsche ranks highest in initial quality for a third consecutive year, posting a score of 80 PP100. With a 20 PP100 improvement from 2014, Kia follows Porsche in the rankings at 86 PP100. This marks the first time in the history of the study that Kia has led all non-premium makes in initial quality.

Jaguar (93 PP100), Hyundai (95 PP100) and Infiniti (97 PP100) round out the top five nameplates. Infiniti is one of the most improved brands in the study, lowering its problem score by 31 PP100 from 2014.

Model awards are spread among several corporations, with many receiving multiple awards.

General Motors (4): Chevrolet Equinox (tie); Chevrolet Malibu; Chevrolet Silverado LD; and Chevrolet Spark
Hyundai Motor Company (4): Hyundai Accent; Hyundai Tucson; Kia Sorento; and Kia Soul
Nissan Motor Company (4): Infiniti QX70; Infiniti QX80; Nissan Sentra; and Nissan Quest
Volkswagen AG (4): Audi Q3; Porsche 911; Porsche Boxster; and Porsche Macan
BMW (3): BMW 2 Series; BMW 4 Series; and BMW 5 Series
Toyota Motor Corporation (3): Lexus LS; Toyota Tacoma; and Toyota Sequoia
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (2): Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger
Ford Motor Company (2): Ford Escape (tie) and Ford Super Duty
Mazda (1): Mazda MX-5 Miata

Plant Assembly Line Quality Awards

BMW AG’s Rosslyn, South Africa plant, which produces the BMW 3 Series, receives the Platinum Plant Quality Award for producing models with the fewest defects or malfunctions. Plant quality awards are based solely on defects and malfunctions and exclude design-related problems.

In the North America/South America region, Toyota Motor Corporation’s Cambridge North, Ontario, Canada (TMMC) plant, which produces the Toyota Corolla, receives the Gold Plant Quality Award.

Kia Motors Corporation’s Kwangju Plant 1, Korea, which produces the Kia Soul, receives the Gold Plant Quality Award in the Asia Pacific region.

The 2015 U.S. Initial Quality Study is based on responses from more than 84,000 purchasers and lessees of new 2015 model-year vehicles surveyed after 90 days of ownership. The study, now in its 29th year, is based on a 233-question battery organized into eight problem categories designed to provide manufacturers with information to facilitate the identification of problems and drive product improvement. The study was fielded between February and May 2015.

Find detailed information on vehicle quality, as well as model photos and specs, at jdpower.com/quality.

- See more at: http://www.jdpower.com/press-release....cng9YDbo.dpuf












pbm317 is offline  
Old 06-17-15, 09:58 PM
  #2  
Hoovey689
Moderator
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default



Learned two things. 1. Kia's are good for about 90 days, then good luck. 2. Never ever ever buy a Fiat
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 06-17-15, 10:04 PM
  #3  
pbm317
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
 
pbm317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,888
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
Learned two things. 1. Kia's are good for about 90 days, then good luck. 2. Never ever ever buy a Fiat
Then you didn't learn much.... 2015 VDS measures 2012 vehicles, of which Kia was fairly average, their latest efforts with 2015 vehicles, at least initially, seem to have made great strides. Yes the 2018 VDS will be more telling as to their longevity. 2015 model year vehicles are still fairly old for Kia. The 2016s and 2017s will be the main start of the new generation of Kia vehicles, which could be even better.
pbm317 is offline  
Old 06-17-15, 10:37 PM
  #4  
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
mmarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Posts: 90,511
Received 83 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hoovey2411
Learned two things. 1. Kia's are good for about 90 days, then good luck. 2. Never ever ever buy a Fiat
Originally Posted by pbm317

Then you didn't learn much.... 2015 VDS measures 2012 vehicles, of which Kia was fairly average, their latest efforts with 2015 vehicles, at least initially, seem to have made great strides. Yes the 2018 VDS will be more telling as to their longevity. 2015 model year vehicles are still fairly old for Kia. The 2016s and 2017s will be the main start of the new generation of Kia vehicles, which could be even better.
Hoovey, I know you are pretty sharp evaluating cars, but I have to go with pbm317 on this one. Kias, today, aren't just 90-day wonders...they are built to last. My brother has had a Soul for 5 years that has been super-dependable from Day One. Others I've known, who own Optimas, Sedonas, Sportages, and Hyundai Sonatas and Tucsons, and an Azera, have been well-pleased with them.

Fiats.....can't really comment much on their long-term reliability, as my experience with them is limited to just a couple of reviews and test-drives. But, I agree, the numbers for them don't look good for them by today's standards. Still, from what I HAVE seen of their initial assembly-quality, they have come a long way from the days when F-I-A-T meant Fix-it-Again,Tony.

Last edited by mmarshall; 06-17-15 at 10:42 PM.
mmarshall is offline  
Old 06-17-15, 10:37 PM
  #5  
ydooby
Lexus Champion
 
ydooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This is perhaps the worst showing of Toyota/Lexus ever in the IQS. Hopefully it doesn't hint at a trend.
ydooby is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 01:12 AM
  #6  
Fizzboy7
Lexus Test Driver
 
Fizzboy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 9,671
Received 152 Likes on 90 Posts
Default

Very strange results. Quite opposite from many CR quality studies.
Fizzboy7 is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 09:41 AM
  #7  
Sulu
Lexus Champion
 
Sulu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,309
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 23 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fizzboy7
Very strange results. Quite opposite from many CR quality studies.

That's because they look at different things.

CR is more traditional, looking at reliability, dependability, durability (will it start everyday, do things fall off, etc.).

JD Power looks at everything that is "wrong", even if it is not the fault of the car. If the driver does not know how to use the latest infotainment system on a new (luxury) car, it is considered a "fail". So modern technology is a major "cause" of IQS failures.

You cannot compare CR with JD Power studies.
Sulu is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 11:13 AM
  #8  
bitkahuna
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
 
bitkahuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Present
Posts: 73,680
Received 2,094 Likes on 1,358 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fizzboy7
Very strange results. Quite opposite from many CR quality studies.
that's because CR isn't a real study, only a 'survey' of some of their subscribers who pay to get validation of their hondas and toyotas.

met a guy yesterday who said my jeep grand cherokee is junk because CR says so and that his new toyota camry will last forever.
he just traded in a hyundai for it which he said began having a few problems at 95,000 miles. he said that wasn't acceptable because the camry he had before lasted over 200,000 miles.

as they say in the stock market, past performance is no indication of future results.
bitkahuna is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 11:23 AM
  #9  
Stormwind
Racer
 
Stormwind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It's only june how did they have figures for 2015 already? I wish I can pay tax the way they do math.
Stormwind is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 11:32 AM
  #10  
spwolf
Lexus Champion
 
spwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,833
Received 103 Likes on 74 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Stormwind
It's only june how did they have figures for 2015 already? I wish I can pay tax the way they do math.
IQS is 90 day study... it is basically "how happy are you after 90 days".
spwolf is online now  
Old 06-18-15, 11:35 AM
  #11  
spwolf
Lexus Champion
 
spwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,833
Received 103 Likes on 74 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pbm317
Then you didn't learn much.... 2015 VDS measures 2012 vehicles, of which Kia was fairly average, their latest efforts with 2015 vehicles, at least initially, seem to have made great strides. Yes the 2018 VDS will be more telling as to their longevity. 2015 model year vehicles are still fairly old for Kia. The 2016s and 2017s will be the main start of the new generation of Kia vehicles, which could be even better.
well, they are two completely different studies first of all... one measures 90 days after purchase and other 3 years.

As to 2016 and 2017 being better, likely actually not... first model years are never good as this shows since back in 2012, these KIA's were mostly all new models and they did not rate as well as 2015 models.

Of course, again, it is 90 days study anyway.
spwolf is online now  
Old 06-18-15, 11:43 AM
  #12  
Hoovey689
Moderator
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by pbm317
Then you didn't learn much.... 2015 VDS measures 2012 vehicles, of which Kia was fairly average, their latest efforts with 2015 vehicles, at least initially, seem to have made great strides. Yes the 2018 VDS will be more telling as to their longevity. 2015 model year vehicles are still fairly old for Kia. The 2016s and 2017s will be the main start of the new generation of Kia vehicles, which could be even better.
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Hoovey, I know you are pretty sharp evaluating cars, but I have to go with pbm317 on this one. Kias, today, aren't just 90-day wonders...they are built to last. My brother has had a Soul for 5 years that has been super-dependable from Day One. Others I've known, who own Optimas, Sedonas, Sportages, and Hyundai Sonatas and Tucsons, and an Azera, have been well-pleased with them.

Fiats.....can't really comment much on their long-term reliability, as my experience with them is limited to just a couple of reviews and test-drives. But, I agree, the numbers for them don't look good for them by today's standards. Still, from what I HAVE seen of their initial assembly-quality, they have come a long way from the days when F-I-A-T meant Fix-it-Again,Tony.
Hah lighten up gents, clearly missing some of the humor. I'm not being facetious just a little stereotypical based on the past three years. The initial luster is getting better but longevity is still subject. I do believe the latest Kia's are worlds better than what they replaced and will improve in the coming years, just not now.

Kia IQS Scores
2015 - 86
2014 - 106
2013 - 106

Kia VDS Scores
2015 - 158
2014 - 151
2013 - 140
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 11:52 AM
  #13  
Stormwind
Racer
 
Stormwind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Can't help but notice acura all the way down there near the bottom. It proves that people who bought acuras are not happy once they get over the "I got it at a bargan" mentality they realize that they got what they paid for.
Stormwind is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 12:05 PM
  #14  
mmarshall
Lexus Fanatic
 
mmarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia/D.C. suburbs
Posts: 90,511
Received 83 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bitkahuna
that's because CR isn't a real study, only a 'survey' of some of their subscribers who pay to get validation of their hondas and toyotas.

met a guy yesterday who said my jeep grand cherokee is junk because CR says so and that his new toyota camry will last forever.
he just traded in a hyundai for it which he said began having a few problems at 95,000 miles. he said that wasn't acceptable because the camry he had before lasted over 200,000 miles.

as they say in the stock market, past performance is no indication of future results.
Speaking of Camrys, CR was, in fact, embarrassed by the fact that they had recommended the redesigned 2006 Camry simply based on the reliability of past Camrys, which, up to that time, had been quite good. But the V6 Camry models that year turned out to have unreliable automatic transmissions. CR, since then, has generally adopted a policy of not recommending any all-new or extensively redesigned vehicle solely based on past reliability alone. Form then on, a new or redesigned vehicle has to earn a new good reliability rating, despite past good results before the redesign.
mmarshall is offline  
Old 06-18-15, 02:15 PM
  #15  
Hoovey689
Moderator
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Stormwind
Can't help but notice acura all the way down there near the bottom. It proves that people who bought acuras are not happy once they get over the "I got it at a bargan" mentality they realize that they got what they paid for.
Surprising, though it should improve. The '16 ILX and RDX are real pleasures ever since getting significant updates like a host of content or the new 2.4 and 8-DCT in the ILX. The TLX is also slick with the same powertrain. I haven't sampled the V6/9-Speed yet. Overall Acura is a safe bet, though it's still missing that enthusiasm of yore.

Originally Posted by mmarshall
Speaking of Camrys, CR was, in fact, embarrassed by the fact that they had recommended the redesigned 2006 Camry simply based on the reliability of past Camrys, which, up to that time, had been quite good. But the V6 Camry models that year turned out to have unreliable automatic transmissions. CR, since then, has generally adopted a policy of not recommending any all-new or extensively redesigned vehicle solely based on past reliability alone. Form then on, a new or redesigned vehicle has to earn a new good reliability rating, despite past good results before the redesign.
XV40 Camry was MY2007
Hoovey689 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2015 JD Power Initial Quality Index



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 AM.