Was anticipating the 2011 issue. While J.D. Powers seems to zero-in on short term car reliability (initial and 3yr), CR has customer-complied data that goes back five or six years.
On the new cars, they issue predicted liability, which is based on history (see six year history of reliability per model, in the back pages). So, they have some Honda models rated below their usual stellar positioning. Yet when you look up close at the data for the old Honda models, by component (engine cooling, electrical, suspension), except for a re-call, it's all red dots (reliable). I don't get it....
What I was really anticipating was a quantum leap in reliability history for the domestic models. I have been doubtful for the longest time, but a new paradigm shift has convinced me otherwise. You see, the old way was: the car maker would accept a bid from say, an alternator manufacturer. Then, when the part failed too much, they'd fire that supplier.
The new way (according to an article): the mfr. and car maker are linked in to the same computer system, working in tandem to find the reason for the failure. In other words, a shift from antagonistic to horizontal cooperative. This leads me to believe that the American car maker will bridge the gap between them and the Japanesese.
So, does the new issue of CR support that? In part. Some of the Ford model's three year history are, in fact, really good. Chrysler and Dodge, on the other hand, different day, same problems.
Hyundai has really closed the gap.
Toyota: the fiaso mea culpa with the Camry seems to not have affected the ratings whatsoever.
High priced German cars: when you're selling a status, it doesn't seem to matter.
www.andrewchaplowitz.brandyourself.com
ReplyDelete