Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
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.