I hear that this year Porsche have badly fallen out of bed with J D power!


Any thoughts gents?


Mike

http://www.caymanclub.net/topic.asp?...itle=Off+Topic


There are bunch more posts referencing the above if you care to search for them

Mike, You are probably referring to this J.D. Power Survey Result published this week:
<h4>J.D. Power: Lexus Wins Top Quality Award, Followed by Mercury and Buick</h4>
<p class="dateposted">Date posted: 08-10-2006


WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif. &mdash; Lexus was the highest-ranking brand for the 12th consecutive year in J.D. Power's annual survey of vehicle dependability, as parent Toyota took top honors in eight of 19 individual vehicle categories.



That's good news for the Japanese automaker, which long has been the industry's quality standard-bearer, but recently has been plagued by a series of recalls and quality issues.



In Power's survey of nearly 50,000 owners of three-year-old vehicles, Lexus owners reported an average of 136 problems per 100 vehicles, well below the industry average of 227 problems per 100 vehicles. Ford's Mercury brand finished second, with 151 problems per 100 vehicles, followed by General Motors' Buick brand, with 153 problems per 100 vehicles.



In last place was Ford's Land Rover brand (438 problems), below GM's Saab brand (326). European brands in general, including Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Audi and Volvo, scored below average.



What this means to you: Based on a survey of three-year-old vehicles, European brands, especially luxury models, still lag behind both Japanese and mainstream domestic brands in terms of long-term dependability. Better buy an extended warranty with that new Cayenne.




Edited by - mpollard on 08/11/2006 1:59:05 PM

What is the difference between the one just released and this one released in June?


http://www.caymanclub.net/topic.asp?...le=Cayman+Chat


They have so many slice and dicing of the JD Power data that it is in danger of becoming meaningless.

Wasn't the June survey taken 90 days after purchase, while this is 3 years of ownership? I guess a lot can change over 33 months of production. Or maybe, faults in some cars only show up over the long haul.

__________________
Fredyy

The Cayenne was terrible in its first 18-24 months since introduction. It is now much better. From what I heard, the cars faired much better.

Fredyy, you are right. Man those Power guys have figured out many ways to sell data that they pay us owners a $1.00 for. I wonder when my next buck will show up?

J.D. Power puts out different surveys. The one that Porsche came in first was the 'Initial Quality Survey', which only ranks automakers based on the number of warranty claims reported in the first 90 days. The one referenced above is for a 3 year period.

__________________
Dave

I am shocked to find Porsche falling back so. One thing they always been god at was Build Q


Mega

Mind you its a very long drop to say Landrover or Lotus poor build levels!


Mega

They haven't fallen back. They have always been average or below average in the long-term reliability surveys.

__________________
Dave

<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="490" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="black_11" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">The Range Rover Sport's hard-to-close liftgate was one cause of concern for consumers. </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="490" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="storyHeadline">Quality Concerns </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="red_18_b">Land Rover blames problems on software glitch </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table>
<tbody>
</tbody>
</table>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="490" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span class="storyByline">By MARK RECHTIN | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS [/quote]



<em class="black_11">AutoWeek[/i] | <span class="updatedStamp">Published 08/07/06, 12:38 pm et[/quote] </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>



LOS ANGELES -- So how clunky are Land Rovers, anyway?



According to the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, the British SUV brand is at the bottom of the heap, with 204 problems per 100 vehicles. That's far worse than the industry average of 124 problems per 100 vehicles.



The poor showing is a repeat performance for Land Rover, which has been in the bottom-three of the Power IQS pack for three of the past four years.



How many vs. how serious



Land Rover executives say it's not necessarily how many problems are found but how bad those problems are. It also matters how quickly the problems are corrected on the assembly line. Land Rover has fixed the problems detailed in the survey, said Al Kammerer, director of product development for Land Rover and Jaguar.



J.D. Power executives counter that niggling early quality problems often are bellwethers for longer-term lack of durability and reliability.



'There is a very good correlation between initial quality and vehicle dependability,' said Neal Oddes, J.D. Power director of product research and analysis.



Land Rover's dead-last IQS finish can be attributed largely to software gremlins that triggered a persistent check-engine light.



'Consumers just knew they had a problem with a check-engine light,' Oddes said. 'They didn't know what the underlying problem was, and that leads to a certain apprehension.'



Land Rover replaced its BMW-sourced engines for the Range Rover with ones from Jaguar for 2006. It also launched the Range Rover Sport with the same Jaguar engines. Both required creating new engine management software applications.



But Land Rover engineers did not account for all the different electronic connections a Land Rover must mate to, compared with Jaguar. That triggered fault codes in the software that then lit the check-engine light, Kammerer said.



Those errors were especially prominent in the Range Rover, which used the new Jaguar engine but retained the original BMW electrical architecture.



'Seventy to 80 percent of all quality problems have their root in poor engineering,' Kammerer said. 'We have gone back and fixed those goofs and have the data to prove it.'



All models involved



All IQS data are sales-weighted, Oddes said. But all three Land Rover models&mdash;the Range Rover, Range Rover Sport and LR3&mdash;contributed to the brand's poor performance.



In addition to the check-engine light, consumers dinged Land Rovers for brake noise, as well as the Range Rover Sport's hard-to-close liftgate.



Kammerer said the brake problems derived from the 'witchcraft' of the brake pad formulating process gone wrong. The liftgate problems came from the body shop's stamping tolerances being out of whack. Both problems have been corrected, Kammerer said.



The real evidence of Land Rover quality comes from warranty cost outlays, Kammerer said. While he would not disclose warranty cost per vehicle&mdash;that being a highly guarded secret at most automakers&mdash;Kammerer said costs are down by 'well beyond 20 percent' since last year.