The complete absence of any hybrid references has me wondering about this report: Strategic Vision - Press Releases - The 2009 Total Quality Awards® What is interesting is the Prius that has led the Consumer Reports owner's ranking for the past 5 years didn't even show up in this report. Then I started looking at their methodology: Strategic Vision - The ValueCentered Method Also: I have to admit I'm baffled by their methodology. Looking at their past scores: 2006 - Ford Fusion 884 2007 - Saturn Aura 892 2008 - Toyota Prius 808 2009 - Jetta Sedan 891 I really have no idea how they come up with their scores. Bob Wilson
I saw a press release on this awhile ago and didn't think it was even worthy of posting. Some of their "winners" fare very badly in the reliability department (VW New Beetle, Corvette and Land Rovers for example). So much for "quality". I think the study is either BS or is a reflection what cars somehow spark an emotional connection in people. I wish I could find the Bob Lutz interview but he stated it best when talked about reasons people give for wanting BMWs. He said people would give BS reasons like handling and German engineering whereas nobody would say they WANT a Chevy Impala. I've seen this odd (and misplaced) perception about VWs, both amongst some owners and people looking to buy. Some of that latter buy something else once they are shown VW reliability stats or talk to VW owners about their repair and maintenance histories.
My first impression from the thread is that this is some touchy-feely piece of BS. The following excerpt confirms it: "It is also important to note that Saturn and Pontiac brands performed well in TQI across most of their models, with both brands tied for having the highest TQI scores in their price segment." So either this award is the "kiss of death" or everyone likes Saturns & Pontiacs but not enough to buy them.
I would not have noticed except it showed up in the local news paper in the business section. There wasn't much detail so I started Googling. Then I realized this was another case of 'press release' journalism. Many papers reprint material given to them from other sources, including press releases. In theory, each story gets 'vetted' by an editor. In practice, the volume of material needed exceeds their abilities or in some cases, skills. This was more of a 'heads up' since others may also see similar stories derived from the press release. Whether or not it is worthwhile to respond, it helps to have the original source and some background. Bob Wilson
Another good reason to ignore it IMO, like JD Power's initial quality awards. How can you declare a quality winner 90 days (JD Power) or within months of purchase? And both use buyers opinions as "data." What buyer would tell you he/she bought a poor quality car 90 days or so after buying it? Kind of like expecting someone to admit "I am stupid for buying this car," few would even if it was clear to them they had. We've owned a BMW and an Audi. Great cars, not as reliable as a Toyota or Honda, and criminally expensive to maintain ($1200 for standard brake job - I was fit to be tied). My Dad owned a Mercedes, it was surprisingly unreliable, he sold it after 3 years (as soon as the warranty ended). Our family was cured of "German engineering" a while ago.
