huh, I thought I had some fact in here. I'll add a few more. ALL mfgs and processes in general have defects - including the quality ratings themselve.:coffeedrink:.
R_Lefebvre, you're not disagreeing with me, as I readily note (and the article I posted supports) some areas of
ALL the quality measures are subjective - not merely CR. Then again, buyers are subjective. I also point out JLR
has improved - a great deal from the last decade - but have not kept up with their competitors. Theres no doubt some mfgs benefit and others do not dependent on the specific methodologies. Doesn't render them useless - as long as you realize how these studies/surveys are useful, and how they are not.
The CR self fulfilling prophecy explation would make sense - if it were just CR. I'll stress again, over long periods of times, gauged by various methodologies and organizations, Land Rover is always in the bottom decile - quite often bringing up the rear. There have been both tacit and explicit, public (by Kammerer, Reitzle, etc) and internal admissions of systemic quality issues - as well as PR driven "explanations" of why they continue to fair poorly in various measures. In '96, '01 and '06 it was changes in platforms and owners. Unlike Mercedes - who fully acknowledged and overhauled - Rover has not. Most probably due to lack of resources and organizational turmoil from multiple sales. Regardless of causes and explanations, they have consistently remained at the bottom. Re: Quality - They suck- just less than they used to.
Quentin Wilson BBC Top Gear had the best explanation a number of years ago.-
Solihull has for far too long sat back and sat on its laurels. People just seem to shrug their shoulders about the quality problem.
Its culture. That's difficult to change - and I doubt Tata will succeed where Ford and BMW has failed.
Funny thing, the claim that Rover is unfairly penalized by bias/expectation/customer demographics in these quality marks doesnt make sense when the Range Rove received...
In the J.D. Power and Associates 2008 Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout Study (APEAL), the Land Rover Range Rover was the highest ranking Large Premium Multi-Activity Vehicle, receiving an Overall Performance and Design Power Circle Rating of 5 out of 5.
APEAL measures buyers "happiness" - which is extremely subjective - an area where Rover does very well, despite the fact that in both IQS
and VDS:smilies27 they receive some of the lowest measures. Rovers continue to sell - which is a testament to the marque, period.
As far as Jag - they've done very well in one VDS - tho improving over time. Buicks been in the top decile for the last 15 years and they still get little credit. Jags there for 3 years running, I'm sold. At present, merely pleasantly optimistic. Not so much because I enjoy Jags (I dont) but I certainly love to see underdog comeback. Currently I'm pulling for Whitacre at GM and Marchionne at Fiat/Chrysler. Tata .... well, good luck Ratan, we'll see.
Bottom line - if you would have happily bought a Lexus 10 years ago, buy a LR4 today knowing its as good as Lexus was then. In that light, LR doesn't seem a bad bet - but I'd still hedge (a long and comprehensive warranty).
ETA - Does that mean Toyota is becoming less reliable - yep, to a small degree. But more important, everyone else is catching up.
