J.D. Power Kizashi Overview

[WESHOOT2]

Granted, there's definitely a bell curve of good and bad cars......

[sx4rocious]

OK, so I have a question that's been burning in the depths of my mind (OK, so not that deep, my mind is somewhat shallow most of the time) for quite a while. This year's JD Power "Truck of the Year" is the Chevy Colorado. OK, fine, it seems like a good enough truck. Ugly, but good.

The funny thing is, I've never seen one in person, and I'm fairly certain they really haven't gone on sale to the public before awarding the "truck of the Year" designation a few months back. I pay attention to these things. I ALWAYS notice when I pass\see\hear\ of a new model coming out and actually mosey through lots every so often until they pop up in an effort to see the newest models. If I haven't seen one yet, then they done exist or aren't on sale in our town or I would have seen it by now.

So what gives? How on earth can it be the "Truck of the Year" if they are readily available? What are they basing their decision on? If the general public in my area can't get one, there can't be sales data to back it up. Or what about reliability? I wouldn't want to deem a vehicle "Truck of the Year" without ANY reliability data, that would just be stupid IMHO. Cutomer satisfaction maybe? How many of us have been satisfied with a bad vehicle for the first month, but realized how bad the car sucked after the first year? I've heard them talk about "initial quality" but someone should explain to me exactly what that means. Did the tester they got have good panel gaps and even stitching? Because if I wanted to win a particular award, I think I would make sure to send the auditors an "example" that I personally inspected myself to make sure it was up to snuff and many times better than what the general public would get.

I don't pay any attention whatsoever to JD Powers just because of this. If they really wanted to fairly rate new vehicles and award quality and engineering and design, they would wait until the vehicles are in the hands of enough of the public for long enough to actually make an educated and LEGIT decision. At the very least, CR reports long term testing results. I've seen them post results after more than 40k miles before, and I really pay attention to those tests.

To me, JD Powers' "____ of the Year" awards are along the same lines as the State of the Union Address. It doesn't really matter what they say, it's all about the highest bidder anyways...

[KuroNekko]

JWhile I know a lot of people don't like Consumer Reports (especially among the Suzuki fan base), they are actually the only independent research group. They aren't paid by companies to conduct their studies.

BS...I know you've seen the audible test videos of the multiple failed attempts to actually cause a roll-over. If the Samurai's sales surge was allowed to continue at the pace it was going, at that time, Jeep would've been the one going extinct instead. Think about it, one vehicle model was all they had to offer the first couple years and they were selling like hot-cakes. Jeep sales were pitiful before the Samurai arrived. We don't even need to talk about comparing quality and reliability between the two.

Oh yeah, don't be naïve...somebody at CU got PAID, and paid well, to kill the Samurai. Maybe not in the public eye paid, on the corporate statements, but somebody got paid.

Worthless rag and I'll never give them an opportunity to blow any of their opinions up my ass.

Well, I was talking about their inherent structure and purpose. Firms like J. D. Power exist for companies like automakers to conduct surveys and formulate rankings for them. Consumer Reports doesn't exist for the automakers or the brands and is independently funded. This still doesn't mean that they aren't bias, but it's not like an automaker is paying CR for whatever rating they give them. By the inherent structure, it would be hard for CR to rate a car as good in an "APEAL" study one year and then rate it low for an "Initial Quality Study" the next. J. D. Power did exactly that and the only thing that changed was Suzuki's subscription to their services.

Whether or not a Suzuki rival was behind the scenes of the Samurai's demise is unknown, but I agree that CR's attack on the Samurai was questionable. It's my belief that while the Samurai does have a higher risk of roll-overs than most other cars, one would have to push it to the limits to get it to roll. I've spent a lot of my high school years in a Samurai my friend owned and never did I feel in danger. The danger is pretty much based on how you drive it which then really goes for just about any car.

Like I originally wrote, it's not CR's opinions or "Recommendations" I actually care for. It's their reliability data that I find valuable. I've followed it for close to 10 years and find it rather valid in the real world. It's great for finding out what model years certain vehicles had known issues worked out given they provide comparative longitudinal reliability data for each component system.

[KuroNekko]

OK, so I have a question that's been burning in the depths of my mind (OK, so not that deep, my mind is somewhat shallow most of the time) for quite a while. This year's JD Power "Truck of the Year" is the Chevy Colorado. OK, fine, it seems like a good enough truck. Ugly, but good.

The funny thing is, I've never seen one in person, and I'm fairly certain they really haven't gone on sale to the public before awarding the "truck of the Year" designation a few months back. I pay attention to these things. I ALWAYS notice when I pass\see\hear\ of a new model coming out and actually mosey through lots every so often until they pop up in an effort to see the newest models. If I haven't seen one yet, then they done exist or aren't on sale in our town or I would have seen it by now.

So what gives? How on earth can it be the "Truck of the Year" if they are readily available? What are they basing their decision on? If the general public in my area can't get one, there can't be sales data to back it up. Or what about reliability? I wouldn't want to deem a vehicle "Truck of the Year" without ANY reliability data, that would just be stupid IMHO. Cutomer satisfaction maybe? How many of us have been satisfied with a bad vehicle for the first month, but realized how bad the car sucked after the first year? I've heard them talk about "initial quality" but someone should explain to me exactly what that means. Did the tester they got have good panel gaps and even stitching? Because if I wanted to win a particular award, I think I would make sure to send the auditors an "example" that I personally inspected myself to make sure it was up to snuff and many times better than what the general public would get.

I don't pay any attention whatsoever to JD Powers just because of this. If they really wanted to fairly rate new vehicles and award quality and engineering and design, they would wait until the vehicles are in the hands of enough of the public for long enough to actually make an educated and LEGIT decision. At the very least, CR reports long term testing results. I've seen them post results after more than 40k miles before, and I really pay attention to those tests.

To me, JD Powers' "____ of the Year" awards are along the same lines as the State of the Union Address. It doesn't really matter what they say, it's all about the highest bidder anyways...

I'm not sure it was J. D. Power who actually awarded the Colorado the "Truck of the Year". The main reason being they do research and studies, not actual comparisons and test drives like actual auto publications or even Consumer Reports.
I believe it was Motor Trend who gave the Colorado the "Truck of the Year" award. These awards are the result of MT getting most of the vehicle's segment rivals together and then a bunch of their staff test driving them. They then come up with an agreement which vehicle they thought was "best". Looks like the Colorado won this year based on their experiences, but I agree that these trucks are nowhere to be seen. In fact, I'm not even certain they are actually on sale yet.
I've only seen them in auto shows. I sat in one in January and while I really liked the design, it felt huge. It's like fullsize trucks got extra large and midsize trucks took on the size fullsizes used to be 15 years ago. Nothing today quite feels like a Tacoma or Ranger from the 90's or even early 2000s. Everything is plus-sized and not everyone wants that.

Anyhow, here's the link for the Motor Trend Truck of the Year going to the Colorado.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/tru ... _the_year/

[sx4rocious]

you're probably right...

[Woodie]

I have a similar concern about VW. I'm seeing ads that say the Golf is car of the year, and I'm wondering if that was voted upon by people who had to walk up until they were awarded a Golf to test drive? Isn't the Jetta a Golf with a trunk? I just had a Jetta loaner while my car was in the body shop, and found it to be the most horrid thing I've driven in at least ten years. It had a bad case of hesitation, threw warnings up on the instrument cluster at random, clunky awkward switchgear some of which I couldn't figure out without the owner's manual, couldn't get comfortable and my head was lightly brushing the roof all the time. The doors were too small making it difficult to get in and out of, and a couple of the rotary knobs were stripped out and didn't turn the shaft they were supposed to control.

It was fairly nice looking and cruised down the road very competently once up to speed, but that's the only nice things I could find about it. At best it was simply blah and I couldn't wait to be shut of it.

[Ronzuki]

Everything can be a car of the year when it's all new and shiny...they have to pick something.
I laughed today when I saw that Golf bit. VW=Horrid electrical gremlins.

Agreed about the Colorado is equal to a yester-year full size. Nice looking and all, but far too big in size and more over, price. I have to laugh every time I walk out the back door at work and see the two 3/4 ton, reg. cab, long bed, 2WD GMC company trucks sitting there side-by-side. The 1997 is dwarfed in every way by the 2013. The worst 'feature' is that it's significantly taller, making it a real PITA to get into and out of as well as loading and unloading. I'm 5-11 and I can't reach over the side into the bed up by the cab to grab a strap on the tie down in the 2013. No problem in the 97...even back when it was new.

[KuroNekko]

I personally think VWs are nice to drive but horrible to own. They are unreliable and I think their material quality is quite bad. They are very susceptible to electrical problems... much like most European cars. I really think the saving grace to European cars are the way they drive.
I think the nice thing about the Kizashi is that it has Japanese reliability and build quality but drives more like a Euro car. It's an appealing combination.

[bmw&kizzyownr]

After catching up on my reading, seeing some comments on Consumer Reports on this forum, and after viewing the attached article on the 10 worst cars according to Consumer Reports (CR)... or at least the ones the author thought CR disliked the most I wanted to add my two cents.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/1 ... ?a=viewall

I admit I'm biased (currently own a Suzuki product/Kizashi), have ridden numerous times in my friend's Samurai and loved it.... and having previously owned an Isuzu Trooper as did my neighbor. I also currently own a BMW X3 (SUV), have owned a Honda Pilot, a Honda CRV, a Jeep Liberty, and several other SUVs. Nothing was as dependable or well planted on the road as the Trooper. Would still have it if some young gal hadn't been playing on her phone when she pulled in front of me and totaled it.

Yes, CR provides valuable reliability info and recommendations on new/used cars. But, I would really recommend you take their "opinions" with a grain of salt... especially since they have been partly responsible for the demise of Isuzu and Suzuki from the US market. And did I mention their reliability info? Yes, it's broken down by trouble spots (audio system, electrical, etc). However, it's a fact that a vehicle may not be recommended when it has the same number of defects as another vehicle (also not recommended). However, one vehicle may have "major" engine problems and the other "power equipment" issues. YES, they're all important ... but I'd sure rather purchase the car (all things being equal...price, type vehicle I wanted, etc) with power equipment (windows, locks, etc) problems vs major engine problems.

Here's another example of recommendations from CR: The Chevy Cruze reliability (1.8 T engine) is rated average but the vehicle which uses 90% of it's components (it does have additional body modifications & several luxury appointments) the Buick Verano is one of it's top picks for reliability (had relatively few problems). Makes you wonder, huh? Yes, I realize they only document the problems that are reported....but do customers sometimes exaggerate their experiences with vehicles from more expensive nameplates than cheaper ones (Buick vs Chevy) maybe so their resale value doesn't take as much of a hit? Something to consider anyway! I know my neighbor says he does with no qualifications/regrets.

Also, "if I remember correctly" .... they previously evaluated the Suzuki Kizashi for reliability and pointed out that not enough data was available (to their credit) but stated that it's predicted reliability was average or worse based on other Suzuki's ....many of which were rebadged Korean vehicles. That wasn't a fair comparison. I hope my memory is correct on that....I didn't go back and look at the 2012 or 2013 annual auto issues but that's what I remember.

In summary: I agree that the magazine is a good starting point with a lot of valuable info and that major auto manufacturers heed what they say....especially since many read their recommendations like they are gospel. And YES, I would surely place "a ton" more credence on their recommendations than those of mine or of others... like the authors of Motor Trend or Automobile magazines but clearly it isn't the 'bible' for buying a vehicle that many people believe it is.

[bmw&kizzyownr]

One more example of CR bias/errors/mistruths. On page 81 of the current (Apr 15) 2015 Annual Auto Issue they list the VW Tiguan as one of "The Worst of the Worst Used Cars". I think that inclusion might cause real apprehension in the minds of many who would buy a Tiguan used or new. But wait, on page 64 of the same issue they evaluate the 2015 VW Tiguan and provide their "recommendation" on purchasing it. Their evaluation includes the comment "... a solid and agile small SUV" and "... reliability has been average". Confused, who wouldn't be? The VW Tiguan is due (many would say overdue) for a drastic redesign since it hasn't changed significantly (albeit a new powertrain and a handful of other changes) since it's intro to the NA market so their evaluation of the 2015 Tiguan should be consistent with previous model years. In this case/review it's probably just an error vs deliberate bias but it still gives you reason to question the findings in the magazine. If you look close...there are many more reviews that give one 'pause' about the facts behind their recommendations.

In summary: I think that anyone with a good education, a car buff, or someone who pays attention to detail will come to the conclusion that CR is a good source but it has it's issues. They need to sell magazines for the staff who work at CR to keep their jobs, get raises, purchase their products, etc. and that often includes portraying automobiles (like the Samurai and Trooper) as bad for the automotive public. Yes, a vehicle may have 'issues' but they 'sometimes' take it to the extreme to sell those magazines. They also 'independently' evaluate other vehicles (as well many other consumer items) and do a reasonable job...but again, they aren't perfect. WHO IS? Business is business and they 'sometimes' do things for a specific reason as interviews with former supervisors and managers at their publication indicate. It's easy to confuse their "non-profit & independent" status with "pure and non-biased". I subscribe to their publication but don't believe these two concepts are always mutually inclusive. J.D. Power is a valuable resource and so is CR...but they're both just one 'valuable' resource. I would trust many of your opinions (based on prior knowledge/purchase) just as much these sources.

Happy Motoring...