1. In the last pair of manufacturing years for which data
are
available, ten of the eleven highest Reliability Index
Values were held by models of the Reliable Two – Toyota and
Honda. The remaining top model was by Nissan.
2. In the last pair of manufacturing years for which data
are
available, eight of the ten lowest Reliability Index Values were held by models of
the Big Three. General Motors Corporation accounted for
seven of the
ten lowest Reliability Index Values.
The bottom-ten model not by the Big Three was by Land Rover, a
European division of Ford Motor Company.
|
The
Reliable Two |
0% |
|
Nissan |
0% |
|
The
Middle Group |
1.3% |
|
Volkswagen and The
Big Three |
98.7% |
5.
a. For
each pair of manufacturing years, a Toyota pickup has had a Reliability Index Value that has
been within the top ten Reliability Index Values, and for
eleven of the thirteen pairs of manufacturing years the Reliability
Index Value of a Toyota pickup has been
within the top five Reliability Index Values.
b. For
all but the 1996-1997 pair of manufacturing years, the Honda Accord
has had a Reliability Index Value that has been within the top
ten Reliability Index Values.
c.
For each pair of the last ten pairs of manufacturing years,
Toyota’s Lexus LS has had a Reliability Index Value that
has been within the top five Reliability Index Values.
6. At the other end,
a.
For ten of the thirten pairs of manufacturing years,
General Motors’ Pontiac
Grand Am has had a Reliability Index Value that has been within
the bottom ten Reliability Index Values.
b.
For
six of the last
seven pairs of manufacturing years, Chrysler's Dodge Intrepid
has had a Reliability Index Value that has been within
the bottom ten Reliability Index Values.
8. The Reliability Index Values of most models have improved
over the thirteen-year history.
9. The Reliability Index gap between Toyota and Honda is rather
miniscule, save for the 1996-1997 and 1999-2000 pairs of manufacturing years,
for which available were data on the Honda Passport, a rebadged
product by Isuzu, an affiliate of General Motors.
10. The Middle Group has seen its Reliability Index gap
with Toyota grow
rather consistently and dramatically over the thirteen-year history.
11. The Reliability Index gap between Toyota and the Big Three
remained very constant and large over the first seven pairs of
manufacturing years, hovering about
-.60,
but in the last six pairs of manufacturing years, the gap has
increased, hovering about -.75.
12. The Reliability Index gap between Toyota and
General Motors
remained very constant and large over the first six pairs of
manufacturing years, hovering about
-.55,
but in the last four pairs of manufacturing years, the gap has
increased, hovering about -.85.
Caveats
1.
Although
the Reliability Index Averages for Toyota and Honda are
nearly identical for most of the Reliability Index history, the life expectancy of a Honda
may not match that of a Toyota.
2. The improvement in the Reliability Index
Values of most Big Three models should not be viewed as any
indication that Big Three vehicles are any more durable or that the
knocks, the roars, the growls, the rattles, the clicks, the
screeches, the bleeding plastics, the fading plastics, the cracking
plastics, the warping plastics, and the expanding cracks on
windshields are any less a concern today for a prospective Big Three
purchaser. Nor should the improvement in the Reliability Index
Values of most Toyota models be viewed as any indication that the
durability of Toyota motor vehicles has improved; it may have
improved, it may have remained about the same, or it may have
worsened, especially from increased North American parts sourcing
for certain models. To determine such, new methods of measurement,
new indices, and new leading indicators must be devised.
3.
For
additional caveats regarding Toyota models manufactured in North
America or having parts sourced in North America, see the 2001
Auto Review and Advisories.
4.
Finally,
it should be noted that the improvement in Reliability Index Values
and Averages may have several sources. First, and likely most
important, is the improvement in the reliability of many models.
Second is that in these prosperous times Americans feel good about
things, especially their physical possessions. Third is that one or
more manufacturers may have puffed the results of one or more models
by having or encouraging employees to return questionnaires with
favorable responses. Hence, as in all of life, consumers should
proceed cautiously in selecting a personal, business, or family car.
Supporting Auto on Info
December 2007: