"consumer reports" ...well, reports

I have never trusted Consumer Reports. There are just too many variables to measure reliability, etc. However one CAN get clues about a brand's general direction. Most of us would hardly object at the findings of CR when for many years, they rated Honda and Toyota pretty highly and the American automakers relatively low during that period. And in doing so (plus the public's outcry, and the loss of sales) the Americans were prompted to better their quality. Only one that has done so IMO has been Ford.

Having said that, it is also common to hear people "defend" their own particular brand favorite when it shows low ratings. Always "some other way" that they should have evaluated it. It was present in this thread as some defended BMW that way.

Also, simply asking consumers their opinion can be biased in several ways. First the "group" that they selected to ask. Also, how did they "adjust" the findings to better reflect the overall group based upon the relatively few opinions submitted. How were the people giving their opinions selected to participate? How were "occurrences" evaluated? A loose screw certainly may not be as important as a transmission freeze-up. Now-a-days, virtually ANY electronic failure will leave one frustratingly stranded. Also, how did they adjust for human tendencies? For example. people who purchase something, especially something costly, often hide their purchase's faults, because they want to influence someone else to purchase the same thing. Then, on the other hand, people will sometimes go the other direction. One negative experience, and they then want to blast the whole product.

I does seem to me, that the overall tendencies (over a long period of time) show superior reliability from the various Japanese manufacturers (including both motorcycles and autos) and lower satisfactory results from the Euro brands, followed up with the lowest marks for the American made products.

jimmylee said:

followed up with the lowest marks for the American made products.

Click to expand...

So, the Honda products from the Marysville OH plant are lower quality than the home country products? I know I have doubts about my Texas-built Tacoma vs my old Deluxe 4X4. And heaven forbid, who would take a risk on one of those Bimmers from SC?

I think your statement was referring to American designs, management and quality control. When you eliminate those factors, products made in the US seem to be the same as those from Germany or Japan.

36654 said:

So, the Honda products from the Marysville OH plant are lower quality than the home country products? I know I have doubts about my Texas-built Tacoma vs my old Deluxe 4X4. And heaven forbid, who would take a risk on one of those Bimmers from SC?

I think your statement was referring to American designs, management and quality control. When you eliminate those factors, products made in the US seem to be the same as those from Germany or Japan.

Click to expand...

"American designs, management and quality control." The only thing left is manufacturing. I live fairly close to Marysville, and my son lives about 2 miles from th Greenville, SC BMW plant. Both have far superior reputations than any American made (American brand) auto facilities. The only other factor absent from your listing is manufacturing, and the presence of unions have a lot to do with that. When one factors in unions, the quality level dips heavily!

American workers in those conditions simply do not have the 'culture" of quality that others have. Remember Ford's pseudo slogan, "At Ford. quality is Job 1"? Americans all believed that even through the Pinto (piece of junk) and many, if not all, of the autos that followed.

I would bet, that if you put the question of which brands had the best quality reputation, and eliminated auto workers from answering, the answers would decidedly line up with either Toyota or Honda tops on the list! This has been true for many years. That long of a run, if there were a problem, it would have shown up. I would bet that BMW would never show up near the top - expensive, yes, quality, no!

But even then, nearly all foreign brands would still do much better than their American made counterparts. Duh? Of course, I am talking about American companies, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and that paragon of quality. Harley Davidson.

jimmylee said:

When one factors in unions, the quality level dips heavily!

Click to expand...

The Spandau plant is unionized.

36654 said:

The Spandau plant is unionized.

Click to expand...

So? What is your point?

jimmylee said:

So? What is your point?

Click to expand...

"When one factors in unions, the quality level dips heavily!"

CR never does and never did test every product from every category, so what's the point for their existence?

tommcgee said:

CR never does and never did test every product from every category, so what's the point for their existence?

Click to expand...

Some of the products like with motorcycles, they write reports on are not tested by them. Their report is based on reader surveys and targets reliability only. If you want appliance reliability and will accept appliance performance, CR is the magazine for you. If you want performance, fun, a machine with soul and a personality, CR might not be your best choice when making a decision. A bike that is perfect for one person might be totally unsuitable for another regardless of their reliability.

36654 said:

"When one factors in unions, the quality level dips heavily!"

Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a troll question but feel compelled to answer, since no supporting evidence was added to substantiate the claim of a relationship between union shop and quality. Having been on both sides of the bargaining table, and mostly on the management side at Chrysler, I should probably by job title, agree with your statement, but from a practical standpoint, there just isn't much evidence to support your position. And I say that with a wealth of experience with some major union/management labor disputes under my belt, where a couple of times I felt that my safety was in jeopardy on the production floor, so I don't have much real love for automotive unions. Production systems are managed by process architecture, and if managed correctly, produces high standards of conformity. The thing that affects quality the most, is the many supply chain members who contribute widgets to the final assembly that may or may not be up to quality standards on any particular batch number. Which is why you see recalls that target certain Vin numbers based on specific production days.... So, from an emotional perspective, I can understand blaming quality issues on union operations; however I would need to see specific data that tracks quality levels between two plants (one union and one non-union) using the same processes and equipment (robots, automation etc.) and suppliers before acknowledging any weight to this perspective.

weschmann said:

"When one factors in unions, the quality level dips heavily!"

Not sure if this is a troll question but feel compelled to answer, since no supporting evidence was added to substantiate the claim of a relationship between union shop and quality.

Click to expand...

Note that this is a quote from a previous poster, not offered up by 36654. See this post:

http://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread...t-well-reports&p=925042&viewfull=1#post925042

36654 said:

The Spandau plant is unionized.

Click to expand...

Still, what's your point? Are you saying that the quality is A-1 from Spandau even though it is unionized (per you).?

Unions are a negative aspect that inhibits quality. Never the other way around.

Please explain your comment!!

ALL German auto manufacturers have unionized shops in Germany. The unions there have seats on the board of directors. It's a part of the law there. If you think that the Germans produce a high quality auto or bike, or have done so in the past, then you are thinking about something that was produced with unionized labor.

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes magazine

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.

Click to expand...

There are ?two overlapping sets of institutions? in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country?s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany?s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they ?hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,? according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for ?works councils? in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, ?where you don?t always wear your management pin or your union pin.?

Click to expand...

As Michael Maibach, president and chief executive of the European American Business Council, puts it, union-management relations in the U.S. are ?adversarial,? whereas in Germany they?re ?collaborative.?

Click to expand...

jimmylee said:

Still, what's your point? Are you saying that the quality is A-1 from Spandau even though it is unionized (per you).?

Unions are a negative aspect that inhibits quality. Never the other way around.

Please explain your comment!!

Click to expand...

Every BMW, MB & VW Group plant in Germany is unionized. Home country Honda and Toyota plants are unionized. Is the quality BMW's and Mercedes produced in Germany lower than the US-produced products?

weschmann said:

Not sure if this is a troll question but feel compelled to answer, since no supporting evidence was added to substantiate the claim of a relationship between union shop and quality. Having been on both sides of the bargaining table, and mostly on the management side at Chrysler, I should probably by job title, agree with your statement, but from a practical standpoint, there just isn't much evidence to support your position. And I say that with a wealth of experience with some major union/management labor disputes under my belt, where a couple of times I felt that my safety was in jeopardy on the production floor, so I don't have much real love for automotive unions. Production systems are managed by process architecture, and if managed correctly, produces high standards of conformity. The thing that affects quality the most, is the many supply chain members who contribute widgets to the final assembly that may or may not be up to quality standards on any particular batch number. Which is why you see recalls that target certain Vin numbers based on specific production days.... So, from an emotional perspective, I can understand blaming quality issues on union operations; however I would need to see specific data that tracks quality levels between two plants (one union and one non-union) using the same processes and equipment (robots, automation etc.) and suppliers before acknowledging any weight to this perspective.

Click to expand...

After I did the cut and paste of the statement, I realized that I didn't provide the proper reference. It wasn't my statement.

FWIW: The union debate around here tends to be a bunny trail that leads to no where, inhabited by wolves of all kinds and policed by the DNR which when things get to wild and bloody kill everything that moves. A statistician may very well be able to present a case for a correlation between union shops and quality in either value direction. What I am very less sanguine about is the implied causality relationship between unions and quality in any of the arguments.

Being a union or non union shop defines part of the work/business environment. Once that is defined it is the job of labor and management to produce the best product they can. In an increasingly global manufacturing setting companies may be union at their assembly plant but use non union vendors to supply parts and sub components. So is the resulting product the product of a union or non union shop? Who cares as a customer? Either way you want a quality product how ever you are defining that in the case of any product you buy or use.

To the point of the OP, I don't see a link to the sighted article so I am not clear what metrics CR is using to measure and make their assessments.
- Recall stats? Then the questions are how they are measuring them. Total number of recalls in a given time period? Do they weight recalls on some basis or are all recalls treated the same?
- Reader/owner input/surveys? I find that type of information interesting to read but have serious doubts questions about how it is gathered. Too often you are presented with skewed sampling systems that yield bar bell results heavily populated by responses 'this is the worst/best product ever invented and manufactured'.

How do you define quality and value?

I tend to use a bag of measurements that may vary a bit from industry to industry and product to product. The bag does tend to include an assessment of how I will use X, the acquisition cost, fit/finish, life cycle costs of ownership and such.

How you make those assessments can make a big difference in how you view quality. The pit crew demands much pricier, softer etc toilet paper than I am perfectly willing to settle for and be happy with. In the case of my BMW Roadster I found the initial cost acceptable, fit and finish good, life cycle costs have be good to date so over all using those metrics I have a quality product. I am a bike whore so I will ride any of the road worthy bikes the pit crew has (and regularly do) but they own and have owned many I would not because of my assessments of quality.

CR may provide a benchmark for assessing products. How did they do their valuation? How do I use their work product?

I'm on my fourth BMW and never had a problem with any of them. Couldn't care less what consumer reports or anyone else has to say about them. Guess it's a shame if a prospective buyer looks at that and makes up their mind not to buy one due to their report but I would hope they do more research then that.

jimmylee said:

Unions are a negative aspect that inhibits quality. Never the other way around.

Click to expand...

Worked in plants as both union and non-union in my younger days. Jimmy, you've drunk the cool aid. Seen unions as both good and bad. Unions have been demonized over the years as the problem with our economy. There can be more laid on bad management inhibiting quality than unions. Case in point, the US auto industry. I agree that unions have lost a lot of their usefulness but a lot of that can be laid upon big business owning the legislative process. Previous posts have mentioned the German system. Prior to taking on the problems of East Germany, West Germany was the number one exporting nation in the world. They understood that companies, workers and government working together made superior products. The USA has rules set up to defeat that from happening. Wonder who that benefits the most???

jimmylee said:

Still, what's your point? Are you saying that the quality is A-1 from Spandau even though it is unionized (per you).?

Unions are a negative aspect that inhibits quality. Never the other way around.

Please explain your comment!!

Click to expand...

bacca's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!

I argue unions with my sons, who see them as obstacles to "logically run operations" by a company. Personal experience matters in my world-I have worked on "both sides of that fence" & can truthfully say that there are places where the union is worse than the company and vice versa, having belonged to crappy unions and also worked for companies where the workplace was better with a good union.
Read : Eric Hoffer, the "stevedore philosopher" for some insight into the balance of power between worker & manager-I've been both and usually agree with him.
The union had zero bearing on my work as a trained, skilled person. Fact is the union & company (Goodyear) worked hard -TOGETHER!-to develop the modern apprenticeship I served years ago. In full view of having a drawer full college degrees, many Army schools & having worked in tech education for years, I can truthfully attest that training to have been the best of it's kind that I've seen. Unions had little to do either way with my ethic of management. You can be your own person & belong to a union, or not.
From what little I know about the recent VW/UAW union shop vote, I would have voted against the union shop. FWIW, my son in TN told me that the dues were $3 hrly for membership. Progressive company,eh?

kantuckid said:

bacca's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!

I argue unions with my sons, who see them as obstacles to "logically run operations" by a company. Personal experience matters in my world-I have worked on "both sides of that fence" & can truthfully say that there are places where the union is worse than the company and vice versa, having belonged to crappy unions and also worked for companies where the workplace was better with a good union.
Read : Eric Hoffer, the "stevedore philosopher" for some insight into the balance of power between worker & manager-I've been both and usually agree with him.
The union had zero bearing on my work as a trained, skilled person. Fact is the union & company (Goodyear) worked hard -TOGETHER!-to develop the modern apprenticeship I served years ago. In full view of having a drawer full college degrees, many Army schools & having worked in tech education for years, I can truthfully attest that training to have been the best of it's kind that I've seen. Unions had little to do either way with my ethic of management. You can be your own person & belong to a union, or not.
From what little I know about the recent VW/UAW union shop vote, I would have voted against the union shop. FWIW, my son in TN told me that the dues were $3 hrly for membership. Progressive company,eh?

Click to expand...

The $3 hrly rate for dues doesn't make sense. UAW dues are 2hrs per month. For new employees (14.50/hr), that's $29.00 or ~1.2% of gross.

chewbacca said:

Worked in plants as both union and non-union in my younger days. Jimmy, you've drunk the cool aid. Seen unions as both good and bad. Unions have been demonized over the years as the problem with our economy. There can be more laid on bad management inhibiting quality than unions. Case in point, the US auto industry. I agree that unions have lost a lot of their usefulness but a lot of that can be laid upon big business owning the legislative process. Previous posts have mentioned the German system. Prior to taking on the problems of East Germany, West Germany was the number one exporting nation in the world. They understood that companies, workers and government working together made superior products. The USA has rules set up to defeat that from happening. Wonder who that benefits the most???

Click to expand...

I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid! I've been on both sides. I have yet to see ONE person in a union not be affected by the union You have to be. You have to go along with the union rules (agreed to or not in the contract). For example, I have seen where one person with in a "category" get punished by the union and fellow workers for simply picking up a piece of trash and throwing it away. An one nationally known company where I managed, I saw on a regular, almost daily, basis where machines were sabotaged so they wouldn't run. I also saw a complete effort by union members to keep the company from becoming more progressive and time saving by purchasing new machinery, like going to CNC machining instead of manual. When the CNC came, I was employed to teach the guys how to run it. Instead of using the built-in methods the machine had, they ran it like it were a manual machine!

Finally, I am philosophically and morally opposed to unions. If they are so good, why do they insist of FORCING membership? Thus, they employ Socialistic methods of controlling other people, which is morally deplorable!

Sorry, but every company where I was employed or worked where there was a union, that company has shut down, and it wasn't because of management, but purely union. I am not justifying either the fact that management is immoral as well. But they, don't force people to go along. People have the choice to work there or not, and people have the freedom to purchase something else. That's why I am committed from now on to own either a Honda or Toyota (automobiles).