Anybody who has watched more than 30 minutes of television the past couple weeks has likely seen Ford's new ads claiming that the automaker has caught up to Toyota and Honda with regards to initial quality. Toyota certainly has, and it apparently doesn't like the Blue Oval's boastful tone. On Toyota's Open Road blog, Mike Michels seems taken aback at the claim, stating that the initial quality survey Ford cites was commissioned by the automaker and performed by a third-party company not affiliated with the well-known J.D. Power & Associates. He then spends a few paragraphs discrediting initial quality in the first place, citing J.D. Power figures that show the difference between the best and worst vehicles during the first few months of ownership were a mere .8 problems per vehicle. Of those problems, most of them were customer preferences and not actual issues that needed repair.
While we agree that initial quality is far from the complete quality story, it's incredible that Toyota would discredit a stat that has been a pillar of its own high quality image. The Toyota and Lexus brands have been among the leaders in initial quality for ages, which anyone would say is a result of great design, engineering and manufacturing. But now that other automakers are catching up, it seems Toyota wants to label initial quality as insignificant. Either way, we'll just have to wait another 3-5 years to find out if a Ford Fusion built today holds up as well as a Toyota Camry.
[Source: Toyota]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
f650 @ May 12th 2008 9:34AM
I was shocked to see these commercials mention toyota directly, basically admitting that "Hey, our cars used to suck and we just mailed it in, but our falling sales reminded us that we should TRY to make good cars!" As their target audience, that's not very reassuring.
As, "initial quality" and "initial value" mean squat to me. I don't care how the quality/value is perceived when you buy the car, I car what it's going to be like in 5 years, THAT is a measure of quality and value.
C.W. @ May 12th 2008 9:57AM
it may not matter to you, but marketing research say that quality in general is one of the main consideration factors for MOST consumers buying a car. including initial quality. yes, ford is admitting to faults in quality as any company looking to instill integrity into their brand. personally i love hearing big companies say "you know what, we messed up in the past. but now things have changed. we're back and we're going to make Toyota earn every sale from here on out".
ford will lose market share for maybe a little bit longer, but what they're doing now is going to pay long term dividends. initial quality has always been a benchmark for toyota so dont let them kid you. it's a big deal.
SOhp101 @ May 12th 2008 11:23AM
Well at least Ford is admitting that in the past they didn't have a good reputation and they've been working on changing that. Ford cars in general have been drastically improving and I have to say that I am starting to like their styling more than Toyota's.
I don't like Toyota vehicles at the moment. My mom's 01 Camry steering wheel squeaks like hell when turning. My friend's mom's 04 Camry steering wheel squeaks like hell when turning.
Reliability? When your parents are the type to get suckered into anything the dealership recommends for "maintenance," there should be a problem free car at the end of hundreds of dollars in these costs. Oh wait, no, there isn't, just a puddle of oil on their garage.
compy386 @ May 12th 2008 12:38PM
I just ran some statistical analysis on JD Power initial quality and vehicle dependability by brand. I ran correlation between 2004 IQS and 2007 VDS and 2004 VDS and 2007 VDS. The correlation between 2004 IDS and 2007 VDS was .79 meaning that in general, brands with high initial quality would have high long term dependability (3 years in this case). The correlation between 2004 VDS and 2007 VDS was .74 meaning that in general, brands with high long term quality in the past would also have high long term quality today. However, this is a slightly lower correlation than IQS. I'm not claiming to be an expert in statistics, but I would gather from these results that if I were to buy a car today, I'd look more closely at IQS than VDS because IQS is a better predictor of future dependability.
Randy @ May 18th 2008 1:43AM
If the perception of American Quality is low, it takes gigantic balls to say "You know what, you're right, and now we've fixed it, try us again"
Furthermore, it's easier for a company that makes 8 cars to change things to make them better than it is for a company that make 26 to retool for all of them while the smaller company is nipping at their heels!
I think it's a true "BOLD MOVE" even though that slogan sucks!
John @ May 12th 2008 9:38AM
this just shows how cocky Toyota has gotten.
oh no, competition has risen, let's hop to it and discredit them asap! rather then rise up to the challenge and improve our own quality even more.
Tragedy @ May 12th 2008 9:47AM
LOL! Rise up the challenge?? What challenge? Toyota has nothing to prove, and they and the general public knows this.
Toyota could have their cars built by children and would still have a higher quality than a Ford. Toyota's products are FAR from perfect, but they're still better than any of the Big 3's, except for a rebadged GM product produced by Toyota.
Bah @ May 12th 2008 11:42AM
Tragedy = fanboi.
Explain how Buick (and I think Cadillac as well) beat Toyota in the JD long term study recently then. Buick was breathing right down Lexuses neck even.
epilonious @ May 12th 2008 10:36AM
"Toyota could have their cars built by children and would still have a higher quality than a Ford. Toyota's products are FAR from perfect, but they're still better than any of the Big 3's, except for a rebadged GM product produced by Toyota."
Here's the thing... if you have a 0.001 serious defect ratio... meaning only one in a thousand cars would burst into flames on the highway... then only 200 or 300 cars would ever have a wheel fall off and kill the driver when you are making hundreds of thousands of a particular model.
When you start making millions of a particular model... then you start having thousands of these cars having their engines seize or losing a wheel or catching fire and other such spectacular failures. Thousands means a greater chance that people getting on the internet and emailing each other about "that Camry that killed a family of four when..."
It happened to GM, and I predict it will happen to Toyota. People already think their full size trucks are crap and Toyota is looking tarnished because of it... and it is my prediction that in 2015 a series of quality snafu's will push Toyota back down to second best and some other manufacturer will steal their thunder. By then it may be something crazy like Renault-Nissan-Chrysler or the new Saturn or Hyundai...
Either way, the "most sold" mark seems to be a death knell for a companies perceived reliability.
Glenn @ May 12th 2008 2:51PM
I agree. Toyota targeted the big 3 for years with these quality studies, and still targest them with trying to convince people their trucks are at least as good.
What has happened is that Toyota has to more and more play in the same field as other -- ie. the "market" is directing the products profit and quality. You can see this by Lexus still continuing on with exceptional quality while Toyota can no longer afford to maintain that at the volume the Toyota brand is selling.
It is more complicated that that, but generally that is what is going on. It was well known that in the early 90s Toyota was selling its cars at a huge loss (Japanese gov't essentially went into huge debt on Toyota's behalf). People were buying Lexus quality at Toyota prices. That cannot be continued at the volume they are selling now.
inteller @ May 12th 2008 9:38AM
"we'll just have to wait another 3-5 years to find out if a Ford Fusion built today holds up as well as a Toyota Camry.
"
well I can tell you the answer to that question. Just look around to how many Toyotas are still driving around as opposed to Fords. It amazes me how many OLD early 90s Lexus I still see driving around. Can't say the same about early 90s Tauruses.
Hank @ May 12th 2008 9:59AM
The Taurus is nothing like the current generation of Ford cars such as the Fusion or the 'new' Taurus/Five Hundred.
I'll put down $5 to say 5 years from now the current crop of Ford cars will run just as well as any Toyota Camrys.
Shipey @ May 12th 2008 10:00AM
I suggest a trip to the a rural state such as PA. You'll find DROVES of Tempos, Tauruses, and such. Not to mention trucks. You'd think they were still making 1989 F-150s by how many are still out there.
Granted, they ARE crappy cars. But when I was 17 I flogged my hand-me-down Tempo mercilessly. I simply could not kill it. I SO wished it would die, but it hung on until about 235K when my younger brother didn't keep the radiator filled and cracked the block. It was a 4th generation hand-me-down at that point.
Now, where I live, about 25 mins from Philly, you see TONS of old Lexus and Acura machines. It's more about the tastes (or lack thereof) of the local drivers than the actual cars.
3cubed minus 3squared plus1 @ May 12th 2008 10:06AM
Hank you did not answer that question. He was talking about Fords sold today which we will have to wait five years to find out.
3cubed minus 3squared plus1 @ May 12th 2008 10:22AM
I meant inteller, sorry Hank.
Bah @ May 12th 2008 11:42AM
First off, early 90's vehicles aren't that old and most *should* still be running. My daily driver is a '92 Chrysler that has yet to need more than routine maintenance in over 160K. My g/f drives a '90 S-10 that was bought at a University surplus auction, so it basically recieved minimal maintenance for the first 15 years of its life. Still, no troubles with it, just maintain and drive it. The S-10 she had before that had over 230K on its 2.8L V6 untill the people we sold it to forgot to check the oil. The vehicle is still going with a replacement engine though.
Anywhere but on the east or west coast (where few domestics were purchased to begin with) you will see plenty of old domestics still going strong and relatively few old imports. It is more a factor of how many were sold in your area to begin with than anything else.
The Other Bob @ May 12th 2008 11:17AM
There are old Toyotas around? I thought most rusted into oblivion like other Japanese cars.
Chris @ May 12th 2008 11:02AM
Hank, you sound like a bad repeat from 10 years ago.
I remember industry people saying the "taurus of today isn't anything like the old, its so much better" etc etc..
IOW - when is it finally going to come true? Five years from now and we will hear it all over again
Get out and Push @ May 12th 2008 12:14PM
@ Shipey: I think your comment makes perfect sense in another way as well. Your old tempo was on its 4th owner and how many of them had been kids? You say you flogged it, I'm sure your brother did, and how many of the other owners drove it like a bat out of hell. These early 90s cars like the tempos and tauruses are mostly bought and driven by younger kids. Who don't take care of their cars, drive them into the ground and generally treat them like garbage. Doing donuts in parkways and speeding on city streets. I haven't seen a kid under 18 driving a Lexus. So I think it's just a perceived quality issue with some of the early 90s cars because of the types of buyers that buy them.
Judy Zik @ May 12th 2008 12:58PM
It is called comparing Apples to Oranges. If you are willing to keep paying your mechanic you can keep pretty much anything on the road forever. What pulls cars off the road is when the cost of fixing it becomes more than the cost of replacing it. That is going to happen a hell of a lot sooner with an old Tempo or Taurus that you paid $500 for than it is with a Lexus. Luxury cars in general tend to stay on the roads much longer. There are certainly enough old Jags out there and nobody would suggest for a moment they were reliable vehicles.
I don't get where all the hate comes from? Everyone knows the domestics were not on top of their game in the 80-90's (the same can be said of the Japanese cars of the 60-70's and early 80's). They are picking up their game now so get over it. Competition is good for us drivers. I would hate to live in a world where the only thing I could buy was a beige coloured Toyota. With the domestics picking up their game we are going to have more real choices on what to buy and Toyota and Honda might have to actually invest some money in making cars that are fun to drive and have style not just reliability going for them. Competition means everyone builds better cars and we get more choices. So open your eyes and take a look at what is out there now. Just because your 15 year old winter beater Chev is crap doesn't mean the new Malibu is.
The fact that Toyota responded to the ad at all and tried to discredit inital quality shows they now they are in for some real competition.