Bookmarking Auto on Info pages
Supporting Auto on InfoHome or
Site Layout or
Site Map or
Site Index or
Quick Jumps or
Search Engine Directory or
The MartAuto News, Analysis and Editorial
Auto on Info’s Site Manager Rebukes Minnesota Public Radio, Makes Suggestions, Offers Help
Auto on Info August 2007
Auto on Info’s Site Manager Rebukes Minnesota Public Radio, Makes Suggestions, Offers Help
By James B. Bleeker
By letter to William H. Kling, Auto on Info’s site manager rebukes Minnesota Public Radio, makes suggestions, and offers help:
William H. Kling
Minnesota Public Radio
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Re: Criticisms, Suggestions, Proposals
Dear Mr. Kling:
The purpose of this letter is to take issue with the opinions of some of your guests and to make some suggestions and proposals.
Within the past year, at least two of your guests have expressed the opinion that the gap in quality between the automotive products of Toyota Motor Corporation and Honda Motor Company, on one hand, and those of Ford Motor Company, the Chrysler Group and General Motors Corporation, on the other, is such as not to be a significant factor in the selection process. I will attempt to show that the gap has been significant, is significant, and will very likely be significant for many years to come.
The charts and table that follow are from Excel files that pertain to my website, AutoonInfo.net.
We see that (1) Toyota has 0%, rounded to the nearest whole percent (actually one entry in the 2005 list), of the entries on each of the lists for the past 3 years and (2) GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have had rather steady and sizable percentages for the past 3 years. (Honda’s 1% results from the Honda Passport, a rebadged product by Isuzu that was sold until Honda had engineered its own SUV.)
To help ascertain whether there has been an improvement in quality by any of the Big Three, we next count only those entries on the 2007 list of Used Cars to Avoid from model years 2004, 2005 and 2006. The manufacturer percentages resulting from this count appear in the next chart.
By comparing this chart with that offering the percentages for all model years (1997 to 2006), we see only modest changes. GM has a smaller percentage (30% versus 37%) in the chart restricted to the more recent model years, while Ford and Nissan have larger percentages. However, GM’s relative improvement may be more the result of worsening quality at Ford and Nissan than an improvement in GM quality.
In the next two charts, we provide the 5 best lines and the 15 worst lines by entries on the 2007 Used-Cars-to-Avoid list. The second chart has been adjusted for the number of models in each line and the availability of data on the line; however, the first chart provides a better depiction of the gap between Toyota and the Big Three – GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The Reliability Measures
Next, we examine four reliability measures that are derived from Consumer Reports’ reliability tables. These are the Reliability Index, the Reliability Score, the Reliability Percentrank, and the Reliability Grade.
The Reliability Index
The first reliability measure that we examine is the Reliability Index, which is basically computed by (1) tallying up the number of CR’s five ratings in the two columns corresponding to 6-to-7-year-old vehicles and 7-to-8-year-old vehicles (from each reliability table that offers such), (2) multiplying the tally of the lowest rating by –1, that of the second-lowest by -.5, that of the middle rating by 0, that of the second-highest rating by +.5, and that of the highest rating by +1, (3) adding together the five values, and (4) dividing by the highest possible rating (to place the range of possible values from –1 to +1). The tallies are computed from the reliability tables of one Consumer Reports publication and consequently cover two model years. Below is a chart graphing the gap from Toyota’s average Reliability Index value to that of the Big Three for each pair of model years and a linear projection of the gaps.
Here we see a growing reliability gap between Toyota and the Big Three, not a declining one.
Reliability Index values for individual models and averages for lines, manufacturers and some groups, together with a summary of important points, may be found at www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/TableI.htm. A more detailed description of the methodology used to compute the Reliability Index may be found at www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/Methodology.htm.
The Reliability Score and Dilapidation Rates
The next reliability measure that we examine is the Reliability Score. The computation for this reliability measure is the same as that for the Reliability Index, save that (1) for the Reliability Score, one model year is used (requiring the tables of two publications of Consumer Reports) and (2) the Reliability Score is computed for all two-year age ranges beginning with the 2-to-4-year range (i.e., for the 2-to-4-, 3-to-5-, 4-to-6-, 5-to-7-, and 6-to-8-year ranges, and for model year 1998, the 7-to-9-year range, because of CR’s expanded coverage in 2006).
The value of the Reliability Score rests in the fact that if we plot the Reliability Scores for a model year and compute the linear projection, we obtain an estimate of the model’s rate of dilapidation relative to that of another model. And if we plot a company’s Reliability Score averages for a model year and compute the linear projection, we obtain an estimate of the rate of dilapidation of a typical model by the company relative to that of a typical model by another company. The charts providing these dilapidation rates – the slopes of the linear projections – for Toyota, Ford, Chrysler and GM for model years 1998, 2000 and 2002 are provided below.
We see that for each model year, there is a sizable difference between the dilapidation rate of Toyota and the Big Three cluster of dilapidation rates.
For more discussion and charts of the dilapidation rates, see the July and August articles in the menu entitled “The 2007 Reliability and Durability Updates” on the home page of autooninfo.net.
(As an aside, note that the rates of dilapidation increase for the most current of the above model years. This likely reflects, in the main, the increased pace of model redesign and the increased introduction of new technology. However, Toyota’s 2002 dilapidation rate likely also reflects the quality challenges posed by meeting the rapidly increasing global demand for its products. This rate may well decline by about 40% - to match Honda’s – as kinks are worked out.)
To get some idea of what to anticipate in way of future dilapidation rates for the first 3 years and the next couple of years, we have the following charts.
The first chart points to improved very early reliability by Toyota and rather steady reliability by the Big Three and the second points to steady reliability by Toyota for shortly after the initial 3-year period and worsening reliability by the Big Three. And both point to a growing reliability gap between Toyota and the Big Three, not a declining one.
The Reliability Percentrank
A model’s Reliability Percentrank is obtained from its Reliability Score by using Microsoft’s Percentrank function. The advantage of this measure rests in permitting comparisons between model years offering different age ranges of the same model, line or manufacturer. The following table provides corporate and group Reliability Percentrank averages.
The following chart depicts Toyota’s, Ford’s, Chrysler’s and GM’s averages:
and the next chart depicts Toyota’s average and the Big Three average:
and the final chart projects these latter averages to 2148.
While such a projection is meaningless (for the number of known averages), it is safe to conclude that the gap between Toyota and the Big Three is not going away anytime soon, and if it is declining, the decline is rather miniscule. This should not be surprising, as there are thousands of individual steps in the automobile manufacturing process, and 2n – 1 subsets of them, and tens, if not hundreds, of individuals setting standards of performance and tens of thousands implementing them (in contrast to one person performing a one-step task as specified by the desire of a second). In short, with regard to automobile reliability, statistics govern.
The Reliability Grades
Auto on Info awards reliability grades by two standards. The lesser of the two standards are the high standards, which are awarded thusly:
Corporate grade distributions of Toyota, Ford, Chrysler and GM for model years 1998, 2001 and 2004 appear below.
These charts suggest some improvement, in a few models, by GM over the 6-year period, and some worsening, in a few models, by Ford.
Note that Toyota’s rapid expansion to meet the rapidly increasing global demand for its products appears to have taken a toll on Toyota quality of late, although locating U.S. plants based on political considerations surely hasn’t helped either. (A more expansive display of Reliability Grade tables may be accessed from www.autooninfo.net/RelGrHiStandards.htm. To see which Toyota products are the bad apples, see Table-I MVRGH on www.autooninfo.net/RelGrHiStandardsMotorVehicle.htm. For some discussion of the bad apples and substitutes, see the August 2007 articles listed under “The 2007 Reliability and Durability Updates” on the home page.)
The Green and Clean Measures
Green technology presents yet another gap between Toyota and the Big Three.
The 2007 UCS Report
Below are five interesting charts obtained from the tables within the 2007 Report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Above we see a very considerable gap in the implemented technology that prevents smog-forming emissions between the pickup trucks sold by Toyota and those sold by the Big Three.
Below we see a similar, but more diminutive, gap between Toyota’s entire fleet and the entire fleet of each of the Big Three with respect to implemented technology preventing composite emissions, global-warming emissions, and smog-forming emissions.
The above charts are rather self-explanatory eye poppers.
GreenerCars.com’s Greenest Dozen
The following chart depicts manufacturer percentages of the 12 least polluting vehicles as assessed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
No Big Three vehicle among the greenest dozen.
From the preceding six charts, we see that the quality gap between Toyota and the Big Three extends well beyond reliability and durability.
Suggestions
I have the following suggestions:
1. Be suspicious of anyone who asserts that the quality gap between Toyota and Honda, on the one hand, and Ford, Chrysler and GM, on the other, has significantly declined or is declining in a meaningful way.
2. Find out precisely what any purported auto quality measure actually measures. When Chrysler’s quality rating jumped on the J.D. Power initial quality survey results, a Chrysler spokesperson attributed the jump to rearrangement of its dashboard knobs. And a J.D. Power spokesperson attributed GM’s Hummer’s poor performance on the same measure to complaints about gas mileage. While the latter is a complaint, it hardly seems a serious complaint, as nearly every human on the planet, at one glance, likely would say gas consumption is probably horrific.
3. Charge a Minnesota Public Radio staff member with the responsibility of doing internet and U of M library research and briefing Kerri Miller and Gary Eichten on what he/she finds. This should fill sizable gaps. For one example, when closing Ford’s St. Paul plant was attributed to slowing pickup sales, in lieu of a quality gap, Ms. Miller should have had the current jump in Toyota Tacoma and Toyota Tundra sales already in her possession. For a second example, when one of Mr. Eichten’s guests advanced the proposition that GM quality had much improved, Mr. Eichten should have had the following chart in his possession.
4. Hire a statistician, preferably one with straight As in either the senior-level or graduate-level real analysis sequence offered by the mathematics department of the University of Minnesota, or comparable institution.
5. Provide more charts and tables on your website. As one of your guests who advocated more and better mathematics training pointed out, this should encourage a more reasoned, mathematical assessment, as well as a greater interest in things mathematical.
With 3 and 4 above, your mid-morning and midday hosts should be better informed with historical perspective and better equipped to pose difficult and challenging questions. This, in turn, should better position your listeners to identify artifice, subterfuge and weak-to-poor analysis.
Proffered Help
I can offer the following:
1. Firstly, much of value pertaining to automobile quality, sales and manufacturer financial performance may be found on my website, autooninfo.net. For gathering automotive information quickly, the following menu pages may be of value:
a. www.autooninfo.net/QuickJumps.htm, from which nearly every section and most pages may be accessed. (You may also try the site’s Site Map, but this is updated much less frequently.)
b. www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/AutoInformation.htm, from which may be accessed a diverse body of automotive information, including a sizable number of sub-menus of news articles available on the site. The articles themselves may be of particular value, as nearly all provide the source(s) of information (although now the home page of a source is usually given rather than the specific web page containing the information, mainly because the pages containing the information change over time, and sometimes surprisingly often).
c. www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/ReliabilityInformation.htm, from which may be accessed all reliability menu pages.
d. www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/DurabilityInformationMenuPage.htm, from which the individual durability information pages may be accessed.
2. Should you not be able to find the desired information, or leads to the desired information, on my website, I may be able to be of help. My phone and fax numbers are above, and the email address that I visit most frequently (i.e., every second or third day, save when I am on vacation) is vonholbach006@yahoo.com.
3. Should you need charts or tables that cannot be found on my website, I may be able to provide such from my Excel files, provided that enough notice is provided. There are literally hundreds of very interesting charts that may be constructed from my Excel files, but constructing and publishing all of them would be a very onerous burden.
Sincerely,
James B. Bleeker
cc. Kerri Miller
Gary Eichten
If you wish to express your opinion about MPR's coverage of auto quality news, click here to go to MPR's contact page.
