After years of incremental improvement in customer satisfaction, a study from the University of Michigan shows that overall, Detroit automakers have declined versus their Japanese and German rivals. The study, which polls customers with six-month-old to three-year-old vehicles, shows that U.S. automakers have stalled in their quest to improve satisfaction. The problem? Rising gas prices have made truck and SUV customers very unhappy with their vehicles, which reflects negatively in the overall score.The Chevrolet brand was hit hardest, with scores dropping 3.7% versus last year's score. The bow tie brand was ahead of only Dodge and Jeep. The news isn't all bad for General Motors, though, as truck and SUV-less Saturn posted the industry's largest gain of 4.9 points to get within one point of Toyota and Honda's score of 86. Buick and Cadillac also performed very well in the survey, with each GM brand scoring an 85. Ford was flat year over year, but the Blue Oval's score of 80 was two points lower than the industry average. Lincoln Mercury also saw a big 3.5% drop in satisfaction, but those Ford brands are still above the industry average score with an 83. Chrysler did very poorly overall, with all three brands scoring under the industry average.
While the Detroit automakers might take note of the unfavorable results, this survey isn't widely published like the ones from J.D. Power and Consumer Reports. Both Ford and GM are faring well in J.D. Power's recent studies, and both are also still showing improvement in Consumer Reports.
[Source: Detroit News]
2010 Nissan Cube breaks cover in Japan
Officially Official: 2010 Ford Mustang!
2010 Ford Mustang revealed early on Ford's own website!
2009 Nissan 370Z rolls out early in So. Cal
VIDEO: 2009 Nissan 370Z revealed early in So. Cal.
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 HUMMER H3T Alpha
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Hyundai Genesis
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse LT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Shipey @ Aug 19th 2008 11:05AM
Sounds more like the buyer's remorse of conspicuous consumption than a customer satisfaction problem with the automakers.
"I'm really upset that my SUV is an SUV!"
Red @ Aug 19th 2008 11:22AM
My sentiments exactly. They're acting as if GM put a gun to their head to buy the SUV and truck. GM only acted as the public wanted, which for awhile was profitable. Now you've got the big gas guzzler you just HAD to have and it's their fault you're unhappily paying near $100 to fill the damned thing up? Hypocrites...
The Other Bob @ Aug 19th 2008 11:30AM
I guess people need to learn to read a window sticker and MPG figures. Its not as if the brand is at fault, infact the GM brands get good mileage for the type of vehicle and Ford and Chrysler are pretty avaerge.
It's just that people bought the wrong type of vehicle and are now blaming the manufacturers for it.
John @ Aug 19th 2008 3:24PM
This survey is a crock of Sh*t!!
Randy @ Aug 19th 2008 1:47PM
I agree! This survey is a total crock of sh*t. So is this blog-post! It says "detriot automakers" but then says Ford was "flat", not the same but "flat". See the media bias?
So this article was about GM and Chrysler dropping, Ford staying the same and as well; ratings are completely tilted because of genre specific models (SUVS and TRUCKS).
When is someone going to make a ranking system that shows model to model and genre to genre and class to class comparisons and combinations.
A little off topic but, Sh*t, OF COURSE MPGs are lower for American auto makers, they make F-600s. They're for construction for God's sake. Anything that ANY other maker lacks shouldn't be counted in an apple-to-apples comparison. PERIOD
Someone remind me not to buy a UM shirt or hat until the current class of UM are gone! I don't want to be associated with the dumb asses.
Of course, the reporter could have misrepresented info and if so, I do retract everything! :)
Vintage @ Aug 19th 2008 11:07AM
I bet they didn't ask anything about resale value, or domestics would be even further behind. 3 year old Saturn? Good luck selling that. 3 yr old Chrysler? Ha. Might as well keep it since it's worth nothing. 3 year old Honda or Toyota? Still worth quite a bit.
stratojet @ Aug 19th 2008 11:28AM
In fact, my brother is looking for a used Toyota. The $$ asked is so ridiculous that it is much better to lease or buy a new one. To a certain extent, their resale value will hurt them. He decided to go for a used Focus or Mazda. Hoda and Toyota are overhyped, according to him. He has been a Toyota lover for all of his life.
Brian @ Aug 19th 2008 11:43AM
@ vintage.
The whole resale value game is all about numbers. Usually when you buy a domestic you tend to pay less for it at first because the rebates and incentives are higher. So when you pay a couple of grand less than the Jap model of course its going to be worth maybe a couple of grand less when you want to sell or trade it in a few years down the road.
As far as being responsible with money and finances. Buying any BRAND NEW car, domestic or foriegn, is a bad descision. It isn't an investment. The most responsible thing anyone can do and try not to lose as much money as possible is to buy as used car as cheap as possible and DRIVE IT UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF! Thus when the car dies who would care about resale value. And any old car with more than 150k miles on it, is only going to fetch so much money at a sale.
Until recently when fuel prices went through the roof. Domestic SUV and Trucks had very high resale value. Their also very reliable too. Even some old domestic cars from the 80s such as Caprices, Regals, Monte Carlos, and Cutlesses can still sell for $3,000 in certain areas in the country.
Shipey @ Aug 19th 2008 11:43AM
Not a very good argument...
First, the Japanese cars generally have a significantly higher sale price, so the residual value should be higher. If you go by percentage of actual sale price retained, the difference isn't very dramatic at all.
Second, why buy a vehicle you like so little that you intend to sell it before you ever sign the papers? If a buyer trades vehicles that often, they would likely be much better off leasing, which would negate the whole argument.
Third, just because some sucker will pay more for a Honda badge doesn't make it a better car.
Vintage @ Aug 19th 2008 2:02PM
I wasn't referring to just BRAND NEW vehicles, idiots. For example, I purchased my 92 Subaru SVX for $3600 back in 2001. Today it is worth... about $3600. I purchased an 89 Accord with 206,000 miles and a few problems for $500 a few years ago. Today, it is worth... $1500. I purchased an older Prelude for $1600... today it is worth... $1600.
This works for newer imports as well. Purchase a used Honda Accord for 7 grand, use it for a few years, and it'll be worth 5 grand or so. Do the same with a Pontiac/Chevy/Dodge/Ford and it'll be worth less than 3 grand.
Resale value SUCKS on domestics, which is one reason I will probably never own one again.
ken_aisin @ Aug 19th 2008 11:14AM
The cheap lease was the reason why there were still people willing to go to the GM and Chrysler dealerships. Now that they have canceled their lease programs, I think GM and Chrysler might as well just fold and get out of the auto industry.
Paul @ Aug 19th 2008 11:15AM
The list of automakers that they looked at is fairly short. A lot of significant brands don't show up: Audi, Infiniti, Kia, Land Rover/Range Rover, MINI, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Saab, Subaru, and Volvo.
I wonder if they didn't have enough responses from owners of these vehicles or if they just neglected to include them.
Stratojet @ Aug 19th 2008 11:22AM
The survey is meaningless.
JDPower and Consumer reports are also contradictory; for ex JD Power prizes the Aveo, while CR says it is a miserable little car.
Customer satisfaction is an elusive notion that has no correlation to the market share, generally speaking. It was invented and fueled by so-called experts just to allow JD Power, CR, you name it, to profit from gullible car executives.
The only survey which has a big impact is the one from Consumer Reports . The major flaw in it is that it would have to be tested against a random sample. As most readers already know, they survey only their subscribers and since they have been singing the same anthem for the last 30 years, their own subscribers will tend to join the choir. This is called a convenience sampling method that does not add cost for CR.
Their database could be in jeopardy if a manufacturer tell their employees to subscribe to CR. In any serious statistical study, this would be impossible since the sampling would be random.
The huge discrepancies between JD Power and CR tends to prove this point.
Convenience sampling:
"Sometimes called grab or opportunity sampling, this is the method of choosing items arbitrarily and in an unstructured manner from the frame. Though almost impossible to treat rigorously, it is the method most commonly employed in many practical situations.
bakka @ Aug 19th 2008 11:27AM
Agree.
Blar @ Aug 19th 2008 12:15PM
Another black mark for CR, IMO, is their scoring. There is absolutely no breakdown for how they arrived at it. Sure, you can guess at why one car scored an 86 and another a 68 by reading their review, but even rags like C&D give a breakdown so you can actually see which aspect of the grading the car fell short on. With CR claiming to be so scientific about everything, I find this a glaring omission that smacks of subjectivity (as if "which car is better?" isn't a subjective enough question to begin with!)
Matty @ Aug 19th 2008 1:29PM
The problems with the survey methodology that you have mentioned may not exist in this University of Michigan study. You say you would like a Simple Random Sample, in which all cases in the population of interest have an equal probability of being chosen. It appears that Michigan's survey has done this, however the population of interest is not the general public, but is instead individuals who have recently purchased new cars.
Bear in mind that even if Michigan polls a random sample of new car buyers, the sample will look nothing like the general public. New cars are more likely to be purchased by upper-income white males, who will be overrepresented in this sample when it is compared to the general public. However, I doubt that the sample in this survey does not accurately represent the population of interest, which is new car buyers.
CR takes the easy way out with its sampling methodology. Of course, its surveys will only reflect the feelings of its subscribers. On top of this, it's a voluntary-response poll, which typically attracts only people who feel particularly strongly one way of the other on a product. Voluntary response polls bias against individuals in the population who hold moderate viewpoints.
That said, the most effective methodology would be a split sample. One half of the sample would be a random sample of the general public, to gauge general public opinion on cars and the automotive industry. The other would be a random sample of new car buyers, to aggregate opinion across that group. With proper survey weighting, the results should be robust with respect to BOTH populations of interest.
motorman @ Aug 19th 2008 11:52AM
the average new car buyer does not notice things like "hard plastic feel" or "rough feeling noisy switches" till they read about it in CR.
Aki @ Aug 19th 2008 1:19PM
The average consumer doesn't even read CR. At best they'll look at the little circles, but most go on their own past experiences and word of mouth.
stratojet @ Aug 19th 2008 5:45PM
Agreed.
SPG @ Aug 19th 2008 12:20PM
How very petty it seems to give an automaker a bad review because you the consumer can no longer afford the fuel for your vehicle.
What worries me is not that some companies are being slammed but the people that could stand to lose their jobs from reviews like this one.
Not to mention, with Chrysler in so much trouble I'm worried about their lineup being scaled down so much that once again, people lose their jobs.
P.S. Yes, I realise that building better cars would remedy a great deal of this situation.