The
Gaps
Useful for the following conclusions is the table
depicting the Reliability Index gaps between Toyota and (1) Honda, (2)
Subaru, (3) Nissan, (4) the Middle
Group
(Mazda, Suzuki, Porsche, Mitsubishi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai,
Saab, Volvo,
and Land Rover), and (5) the Big Three (General Motors, Ford and
Chrysler).
This table appears as part of Table I.
|
|
Conclusion I
The 2007-2008 Reliability
Index Averages for Toyota and Honda should closely approximate each
other, when account is taken of the fact that Honda no longer sells
the Passport, a rebadged Isuzu, a General Motors Corporation
affiliate, as it now has its own sport utility
vehicles. This is what our thirteen-year history suggests, and there is no
reason to doubt it. However, there are two caveats: (1) The Reliability Index Values
vary by model and may be more or less than the average. (2) The
results of the Canadian Automobile Association’s annual survey
seem less flattering, or considerably less flattering, to Honda.
Conclusion
II
The 2007-2008 Reliability Index Average of
Honda and Toyota should be well above those of Subaru, Nissan and the Middle
Six. This is what the above table suggests. One important caveat is:
The Mazda Miata has had very good Reliability Index Values.
Conclusion
III
The 2008 through
2012 models of the Big Three
should still be well in the relative reliability dumps. This is
likely for several reasons.
First, if we project out the Toyota-Big Three
Reliability Index gap, the projection, based on a liner regression
of degree one,
shows a widening Reliability Index gap.
Second, there is no compelling need to improve. The
following table gives the new passenger vehicle market share data
for Toyota, Honda, and each of the Big Three, as well as Nissan and
Hyundai.
|
Table I: Fractional
Share of U.S. New Passenger Vehicle Market for the Reliable
Two, Nissan, Hyundai, and the Big Three for 1993, 1995,
1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and through March 2007 |
|
Manufacturer |
1993 |
1995 |
1997 |
1999 |
2001 |
2003 |
2005 |
2007 |
|
Toyota Motor Corp. |
.07 |
.07 |
.08 |
.09 |
.10 |
.11 |
.13 |
.16 |
|
Honda Motor Co. |
.05 |
.05 |
.06 |
.06 |
.07 |
.08 |
.09 |
.09 |
|
Nissan Motor Co. |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
.04 |
.05 |
.06 |
.07 |
|
Hyundai Motor Co. |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
.02 |
.02 |
.03 |
.03 |
|
General Motors Corp. |
.34 |
.33 |
.31 |
.29 |
.28 |
.28 |
.26 |
.23 |
|
Ford Motor Co. |
.26 |
.26 |
.25 |
.24 |
.23 |
.19 |
.17 |
.15 |
|
Chrysler Group |
.15 |
.15 |
.15 |
.16 |
.16 |
.13 |
.14 |
.14 |
From this we see that Chrysler is the only one of
the Big Three to have nearly maintained its new passenger vehicle market
share from 1993 through March of 2007; however, from either the
Table I web page or the Table II web page, we see that Chrysler has
had either the worst or second-worst Reliability Index Average of
the six major manufacturers. Simply, having the worst models, on average, is no handicap
to selling them to the American public, or at least the bottom
half of the American public, when the remaining two of the Big
Three are only rather marginally better.
Third, pursuing Toyota quality could be
cataclysmic for the global auto industry and suicidal for two of the
Big Three. The argument runs thusly. First, there is likely enough of
a customer rotation among the Big Three to force each of the Big Three
to keep a close eye on, and roughly to match any improvements by, the
other two of the Big Three. Second, matching Toyota reliability alone
should inflict a huge loss of profits on the global auto industry,
maybe enough to force one of the Big Three into bankruptcy in the next
recession. Third, presently there is available only an unending stream
of short-term reliability data; however, on the horizon is an unending
stream of durability data as well. Fourth, the early durability data
on the Durability Information web pages are such as to suggest that
Toyota motor vehicles have attained such durability that matching it
by the Big Three would be catastrophic to the global auto industry and
the Big Three.
In summary, for the Big Three, it should be business as
usual, with one important qualification: Some models, notably Ford pickup
models and some Ford cars, have made great strides in relative reliability improvement.
This
page has been updated to include the data that became available in 2007.
|
|
Reading Material
To gather a glimpse into why Toyota products so dominate indices
of automotive quality, the following list of Harvard Business
Review articles may be useful:
Maccoby, M. (November-December 1997). "Is There a Best Way
to Build a Car?" Harvard Business Review, 161-172.
Sobek, II, D.K., Liker, J. K., and Ward, A.C. (July-August
1998). "Another Look at How Toyota Integrates Product
Development." Harvard Business Review, 36-49.
Spear, S. and Brown, H.K. (September-October 1999).
"Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System." Harvard
Business Review, 97-106.
The first article is a book review of two books on two GM plants
- one a joint venture with Isuzu; however, most of the print is
accorded the Toyota system under the section "Success
Stories." In this section, the Honda system and philosophy is
discussed as well.
Also of interest is the section entitled "The Benefits of
Front-Loaded Development" on pages 72 and 73 of the February 2001 issue of the
Harvard
Business Review.
Additionally, worth skimming are:
Besser, T. L. (May 1995). "Rewards and Organizational Goal
Achievement: A Case Study of Toyota Motor Corporation in
Kentucky." Journal
of Management Studies, 383-399.
Langfield-Smith, K. and Greenwood, M. R. (May 1998).
"Developing Co-operative Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Case
Study of Toyota." Journal of Management Studies,
331-353.
|
Supporting Auto on Info
January 2008: