U of M: It's Quality, not Incentives, Stupid.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Bamberg, Germany
U of M: It's Quality, not Incentives, Stupid.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
From Edmund's Inside Line
Consumers Say They Get Satisfaction from Toyota
Date Posted 08-18-2005
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Toyota dominated a new University of Michigan consumer survey that measures customer satisfaction; Ford received the study's lowest score.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index, which questioned 8,096 vehicle owners between April 1 and June 30, rated automakers based on owners' satisfaction. The study was released on Monday, according to the Associated Press. Owners were asked about their overall satisfaction and their satisfaction level compared to their expectations. They also were asked to rate how their vehicle compares to their ideal vehicle.
Toyota got the top score of 87 out of 100. Ford got the lowest score of 75. Honda, BMW, and GM's Cadillac and Buick were listed among the top five performers. Half of the brands improved their scores from last year, including Hyundai and Pontiac. Customers gave the vehicles an average rating of 80.
University of Michigan researchers say the study shows U.S. automakers should spend less on incentives and more on quality improvements.
What this means to you: The moral of the story is that Toyota raised prices this summer, after getting the highest satisfaction score. A lesson for Detroit automakers: Quality sells.
From Edmund's Inside Line
Consumers Say They Get Satisfaction from Toyota
Date Posted 08-18-2005
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Toyota dominated a new University of Michigan consumer survey that measures customer satisfaction; Ford received the study's lowest score.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index, which questioned 8,096 vehicle owners between April 1 and June 30, rated automakers based on owners' satisfaction. The study was released on Monday, according to the Associated Press. Owners were asked about their overall satisfaction and their satisfaction level compared to their expectations. They also were asked to rate how their vehicle compares to their ideal vehicle.
Toyota got the top score of 87 out of 100. Ford got the lowest score of 75. Honda, BMW, and GM's Cadillac and Buick were listed among the top five performers. Half of the brands improved their scores from last year, including Hyundai and Pontiac. Customers gave the vehicles an average rating of 80.
University of Michigan researchers say the study shows U.S. automakers should spend less on incentives and more on quality improvements.
What this means to you: The moral of the story is that Toyota raised prices this summer, after getting the highest satisfaction score. A lesson for Detroit automakers: Quality sells.
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
I wish someone would send out a survey to original owners of 100,000 mile plus vehicles made in the last 10 years...now that would be interesting. I don't know if I can trust all this other garbage...why would someone who owns a Pontiac with 15k not be happy with it if he bought it and never test drove any of the competiton?
A little chin music
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, Ohio - Rock 'n Roll capitol of the World
I totally agree with you guys.... I bet people who bought new Yugos were happy with them the first day they drove it home.
I keep waiting for an extensive survey for my Prelude, and how I like it after 5 1/2 years and 131,265 miles.
Then survey the same questions to someone with a 2000 Chevy Malibu.
I keep waiting for an extensive survey for my Prelude, and how I like it after 5 1/2 years and 131,265 miles.
Then survey the same questions to someone with a 2000 Chevy Malibu.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco, CA
I'm gonna disagree. True, fewer things go wrong with newer cars, but I think that's why JD Power's got that 3 years on survey. The further down the road you go, the more you have to question whether problems are because of manufacturing, owner negligence, or amount of wear and tear.
I personally know more than a few people with relatively nice cars who despise having to fill up the gas, let alone wash the car, check the engine, and take it in for regular service. And people who own Super Dutys are probably more likely to drive their vehicles rough than say a Camry owner.
Ultimately, I think if there's something wrong with the car that was manufacturing/engineering related, it would likely appear sooner rather than later. And while a 100,000+ mile survey might be nice to have, too many things would put the results into question.
I personally know more than a few people with relatively nice cars who despise having to fill up the gas, let alone wash the car, check the engine, and take it in for regular service. And people who own Super Dutys are probably more likely to drive their vehicles rough than say a Camry owner.
Ultimately, I think if there's something wrong with the car that was manufacturing/engineering related, it would likely appear sooner rather than later. And while a 100,000+ mile survey might be nice to have, too many things would put the results into question.
A little chin music
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, Ohio - Rock 'n Roll capitol of the World
Originally Posted by Troopa-R
I'm gonna disagree. True, fewer things go wrong with newer cars, but I think that's why JD Power's got that 3 years on survey. The further down the road you go, the more you have to question whether problems are because of manufacturing, owner negligence, or amount of wear and tear.
I personally know more than a few people with relatively nice cars who despise having to fill up the gas, let alone wash the car, check the engine, and take it in for regular service. And people who own Super Dutys are probably more likely to drive their vehicles rough than say a Camry owner.
Ultimately, I think if there's something wrong with the car that was manufacturing/engineering related, it would likely appear sooner rather than later. And while a 100,000+ mile survey might be nice to have, too many things would put the results into question.
I personally know more than a few people with relatively nice cars who despise having to fill up the gas, let alone wash the car, check the engine, and take it in for regular service. And people who own Super Dutys are probably more likely to drive their vehicles rough than say a Camry owner.
Ultimately, I think if there's something wrong with the car that was manufacturing/engineering related, it would likely appear sooner rather than later. And while a 100,000+ mile survey might be nice to have, too many things would put the results into question.
I have 132,000 miles on my 2000 Prelude I've owned since it was brand new. The car is still on the factory clutch, brake rotors, and everything else but the belts, tires, and brake pads. I do the routine maint., but I can honestly say I don't "baby" the car..... that is, I enjoy it. It's nothing for me to take it up to redline (7500) when I'm accelerating on the on ramp to the free way in each gear, top out at 80 in no time, and set the cruise. I've taken it through twisting hills where you are constantly shifting to keep the car in the sweet spot. And through all this, it still does not leak a drop of oil, the A/C is still ice cold, the heater will make you sweat in the middle of a blizzard, there is not a spec of rust anywhere, and I still get surprised reactions from people when I take them for a drive and show them how many miles are on it and how old it is......
What's my point? It's a Honda. 'Nuff said.
While there are no absolute guarantees that every Honda and every Toyota will be built rock sold and reliable for years and miles, they're about as close as it comes to assurance that your car will in fact last 6-10 years and 200,000 + miles, whether you baby it or not.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: NY
If Ford and GMC cars/trucks can go for as long as 5, or 8 years, or close to 100,000 miles with less problems then they should, trust me, all the surveys would be focusing on 5, 8 or 100,000 miles.
The fact is, focusing on the first 3 years is the only way Ford and GMC can get a "sucky" score in a survey instead of being rated "un-useable and should be burnt on the spot."
The fact is, focusing on the first 3 years is the only way Ford and GMC can get a "sucky" score in a survey instead of being rated "un-useable and should be burnt on the spot."