Hyundai reliability and JD Power

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Christopher Wong, Aug 12, 2006.

  1. J D Power 2006 vehicle dependability survey:

    It rates reliability over 3 years, meaning this rates 2003 model vehicles.
    Industry average is 227 probs per 100. Hyundai is 253, well below average.
    Hyundai has only one car in the top 3 rankings, in the subcompact category.
    That's because in 2003, there are ONLY 3 subcompacts on the market.

    So despite Hyundai's good showings of some models in the JD Power initial
    quality surveys (2003 Sonata was 2nd in its class) and the Consumer Reports
    surveys, the company as a whole does lousy here. Why? Discuss.

    Christopher Wong, Aug 12, 2006
  2. Christopher Wong

    James Guest

    If you look at the data this way, the Initial Quality Survey did a
    remarkable job forecasting the Vehicle Dependability Survey:

    2003 Hyundai Initial Qual Survey 152
    2003 Industry Average IQS 133

    2006 Hyundai Veh Dep Survey 2003 models 253
    2006 Industry Average VDS 2003 models 227

    Now look at this year's IQS

    2006 Hyundai IQS 102
    2006 Industry Average IQS 124

    Clearly a significant improvement for Hyundai. If the pattern holds we
    can expect the 2006 models to do very well in the 2009 VDS survey.
    James, Aug 12, 2006
  3. Christopher Wong

    Jozef Guest

    I suppose I should then junk my "unreliable" 1996 Accent which has 213,450
    miles on it. Thank you JP Power for the enlightenment.

    Jozef, Aug 12, 2006
  4. Christopher Wong

    Matt Whiting Guest

    As the owner of a 2006 Sonata, I'm certainly hoping that is the case!

    Matt Whiting, Aug 12, 2006
  5. Christopher Wong

    dkuhajda Guest

    Your words are so in comflict with the data it could be considered
    funny, or someone trying to spin the facts.

    "..well below average.." If you consider that if you owned a Hyundai
    you likely had between 2 and 3 problems in three years, 2.53. Just
    like the industry average, between 2 and 3 problems 2.27. Or your
    Hyundai had an 11% chance of having one more problem than the average.
    Not exactly well below average given that this was a consumer survey
    and the demographic differences in the groups of people who buy
    different new vehicles makes for a large error. I think it is plus or
    minus 3 to 6% for a survey like this. "Well Below" is a subjective
    term, but it has long been considered that it takes a 25% difference to
    be considered well below on these types of surveys.

    "..the company as a whole does lousy here. WHY?" You say they do lousy
    here, but yet they did better here than the initial quality study. The
    initial quality study was 14% below industry average, the 3 year study
    was only 11% below industry average. This just flies against common
    sense saying that they did lousy here, referring to the initial quality
    survey where the results showed them slightly further below average.

    It is still deceptive for JDPowers to call this a vehicle dependability
    study. Dependability in peoples minds means that the car had a problem
    and wouldn't get them from point A to B. In the study though they are
    rating number of problems that required an unscheduled trip for
    service. Most problems in cars today are quality problems, not
    dependability issues. The study should be called the 3 year vehicle
    quality survey.
    dkuhajda, Aug 12, 2006
  6. Christopher Wong

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Absolutely! It could fall apart any day now...

    Matt Whiting, Aug 12, 2006
  7. Christopher Wong

    James Guest

    Just think, if you owned 100 Accents you would have been to the dealer
    at least 250 times by now!
    James, Aug 12, 2006
  8. Christopher Wong

    nothermark Guest

    If they don't tell what the problems are then one cannot judge the
    usefullness of the report. I have no faith in Consumer Reports
    because the criteria I have seen them use is often not relevant to my
    decision making. I expect JD Powers has the same problem - a fixation
    on numbers with little correlation between volume of complaints and
    the severity of the problems.
    nothermark, Aug 12, 2006
  9. Christopher Wong

    KWW Guest

    I will second that. I lost all faith in ConRep after receiving one of their
    vehicle surveys (I was subscribing at the time) and despite having a couple
    of serious problems with the vehicle in question, there was no clear
    category in which to place the issues. Some of them had no place at all to
    address them. Thus, a serious issue in one area may be diluted across a
    couple of categories and, instead of drawing a poor mark, only show up as an
    average mark.

    Well, that coupled with a couple of specific instances where I made
    appliance purchases based on their ratings and ended up with a sub-par
    product that was a huge disappointment.

    In addition, I read their "reviews" and "ratings" on items about which I had
    a great deal of familiarity and found time and again that they missed the
    mark by a large margin (especially in the areas of
    high-tech/computer-related items).
    KWW, Aug 13, 2006
  10. So, what kinds of problems did you have that would defy CR's categories?

    Christopher Wong, Aug 15, 2006
  11. Christopher Wong

    KWW Guest

    To be precise I would have to dig back in my records (it was a number of
    years ago now), but I distinctly recall 3 separate types of issues, I
    believe one was a cooling issue which involved electrical components in the
    cooling system (maybe fan). Basically, the survey categories were not
    a) Complete
    b) Orthogonal
    It was quite frustrating and eyeopening at the same time.
    KWW, Aug 16, 2006
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.