Yesterday, we could report that the fickle Fisker that embarrassingly broke down in Consumer Reports’ driveway, received a new battery, under warranty. Now we hear that it was no breakdown. The Fisker Karma shut itself down intentionally to prevent bigger damage.

“The Karma performed exactly as it was designed to,”  Fisker customers can read in a letter from Fisker CEO Tom LaSorda. The former Chrysler CEO and GM exec goes on to say:

“The onboard diagnostics detected a fault and entered a protection mode that shut the car down to protect other components. We are sorry for the inconvenience this caused the customer.”

According to Reuters, LaSorda put together a “SWAT team” of 50 engineers and other consultants to identify any problems or other issues experienced by Karma owners. New software is being tested “round the clock.”

“As soon as this procedure is complete we will send updated software out,” says the letter.

Consumer Reports maintains that the dealer repair invoice said the problem was “duplicated repeatedly” and a fault was found in the car’s battery and inverter cable. Mr. LaSorda needs to know: Intentional or not, a break down is a breakdown.

A FIAT is available in the United States for the first time in decades. It’s manufactured in Mexico. Volkswagen has an all-new Passat built in an all-new American plant. One of them appears to be defying expectations of unreliability. Which one would you bet on?

We now have an early indicator. TrueDelta has updated the results of its Car Reliability Survey (on our totally redesigned site) to include owner experiences through the end of 2011. Others won’t cover the months since last April until next October.

Our sample sizes are small for both car models—twenty of each. But if the results are at one extreme or the other than a larger sample size would likely yield the same conclusion. And these are at the extremes.

A big surprise: the 2012 FIAT 500. With only a single repair reported for those twenty cars during 2011, and that one back in April, the 500 seems to be much more reliable than anyone expected, at least so far. The calculated stat: 16 repair trips per 100 cars per year. If this keeps up Tony’s going to be about as busy as the Maytag repairman.

Then there’s the new 2012 Volkswagen Passat. Its calculated statistic of 147 repair trips per 100 cars per year is about three times the average. If we had responses for another twenty cars, and somehow none of them required a repair, the stat still wouldn’t be pretty. So Chattanooga has a problem. Or perhaps that’s had a problem? Sometimes manufacturers catch and quash bugs quickly. Other times they don’t.

With the last update we provided such an early indicator for the Nissan LEAF. In the fourth quarter of 2011 the LEAF continued to be virtually fault-free, with no non-software repairs for 56 cars. We don’t count software updates as long as they’re free.

This has helped the 2012 Ford Focus. It remains about average in the updated stats (52 repair trips per 100 cars per year), but would fare considerably worse if SYNC updates counted.

And the redesigned 2012 Honda Civic? About as reliable as the FIAT!

We’ll see how Volkswagen has been doing with those bugs, and whether the 500 continues to have few problems, with the next update, in May. The more people participate, the more models we can cover and the more precise these results will be.

To view the updated repair trips per year stats for over 600 model / model year combinations:

Car Reliability Survey results

Come across something interesting? Have a question? Post it in the comments.

Today is a turmoil day in the auto industry. Where brands and cars came in on top of the J.D. Power 2012 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study, champagne bottles were uncorked and press releases were issued. Where brands landed in the bottom rungs, panic meetings were called, fingers were pointed and resumes were polished.

Overall, it is a good day for the industry.

Never since 1990 have cars been as dependable. On the average, a car has 1.3 problems in the first three years of ownership. Last year, the number stood at 1.5 problems. 25 of 32 brands have improved in dependability from 2011, only six have declined and one has remained stable. Domestic nameplates have improved in 2012 at a slightly faster rate than imports, narrowing the dependability gap to 13 problems per 100 from 18 problems per 100 in 2011. Still, America’s most dependable cars aren’t American.

Most Dependable Cars per Segment

Toyota Motor Corporation received eight segment awards, more than any other automaker in 2012. Ford received three model awards, General Motors and Nissan receive two.

In the ramp-up to the launch of the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, a great debate seized the engineering community: was Nissan opening itself to problems by not including a active thermal management system for the Leaf’s battery pack, or was Chevrolet’s liquid-cooled approach simply adding unnecessary complexity? Well, thus far, the verdict seems to be in Nissan’s favor. Though Leaf has been troubled by some dissatisfaction with its real-world range, the Volt has endurd the first technical semi-scandal of the plug-in era, when federal regulators found that ruptured coolant lines could cause fires. Now the liquid-cooled approach is hitting its second challenge, as Fisker’s battery supplier A123 Systems is warning in a letter [PDF] that

some of the battery packs we produce for Fisker Automotive could have a potential safety issue relating to the battery cooling system.

Ruh-roh!

In its warning letter, A123 explains

Specifically, certain hose clamps that are part of the battery pack’s internal cooling system were misaligned, positioned in such a way that could potentially cause a coolant leak. Over time, it is possible that in certain rare circumstances, this coolant leak could potentially lead to an electrical short circuit.

There have been no related battery performance or safety incidents with cars in the field. However, A123 and Fisker are committed to safety and are taking immediate, proactive steps to prevent any issue from occurring.

We have developed a confirmed repair for this situation. In the short time since recognizing this potential safety issue, the root cause was quickly identified, a fix has been developed and corrective action is well underway.

In total, fewer than 50 customer cars are involved in this action.

Bloomberg adds that the problem has been caught relatively early, as Fisker is still producing just 25 Karmas per day at Valmet’s contract-manufacturing plant in Finland. Production is scheduled to hit 60 units per day sometime next year. Meanwhile, A123 is also preparing to start supplying batteries to Chevrolet’s Spark EV, so GM is probably breathing a sigh of relief that it’s catching battery problems before that contract starts. Still, these early issues with battery cooling systems are tipping the debate in favor of the cheaper, less-complex passive cooling approach… for now, anyway. When Summer arrives and temperatures rise, we’ll be keeping an eye on the Leaf fleet to see if problems pop up there.

One of the most closely watched quality indicators in Europe and especially in Germany is the annual TÜV-Report. With German thoroughness, the report tells exactly which cars were naughty or nice. It’s the law:  Three years after you buy a new car in Germany, it must be inspected by the Technischer Überwachungsverein. Thereafter, every two years. This is not your run-of-the-mill drive-to-the-gas-station-get-a-sticker exercise. At the TÜV, each car undergoes a thorough and invasive physical. Fail the physical, and it’s back to the shop. Fail again: No inspection sticker, get that POS off the road. No wonder that a date with the TÜV is considered as even less attractive than a meeting with the proctologist. One out of 5 cars fail the test on the first attempt.

Once a year, the TÜV compiles its TÜV-Report, using the actual results of the check.  This is no J.D.Power CSI. This is the real world, a report compiled with screwdrivers, flashlights, emission probes, brake testers. Executives at automakers await the report with high anxiety. Bad positions on the list can be career-ending.

The TÜV-Report 2012 will be published on December 16. Some results are already dribbling out, but the list itself remains under wraps. We twisted some arms and finagled an advance copy (your Teutonic old boys network at work.) Let’s see who will be promoted and who should polish his resume.

7,779,312 million cars were inspected between July 2010 and June 2011. We focus on two groups of cars: New cars, which are checked after 3 years. And, as the super long term testers, 10-11 year old cars. We will only show you the nicest and the naughtiest to avoid data overload. The percentage number means how many of the cars tested failed and were sent back to the shop. Lower is better.

TÜV-Report 2011, 3 year old cars

If you own a newish Toyota Prius, the TÜV test won’t scare you. For the second time in a row, the Prius takes the top spot. Says Auto Bild:

“Especially impressive: The complex hybrid technology of the Toyota Prius works perfectly. In second place, also a Toyota: The Auris usually masters the first TÜV check without fail.”

Interesting: The Top 10 look like a remake of the axis, with the Italians AWOL: Six out of the ten best are Japanese, the remaining  four are German. If you are looking for the axis partner gone AWOL, check the bottom of the list.

TÜV-Report 2011, 10-11 year old cars

Now for the oldies. Which ones don’t show their age? The Porsche 911 leads the Top 10 of the seniors (with the usual Japanese/German mix).

The Porsche 911 also takes top billing in 6-7 years and 8-9 years. No wonder, it is usually babied and serviced by mechanics with white gloves. Don’t just assume it will hold up forever. Spoil the car like an elegant lady, and she will win the biannual beauty contest.

And which car is the worst you ask? Let’s quote Auto-Bild on that contentious topic:

“The loser in all classes is the Ford Ka. No car has a higher number of serious faults. 38,9 percent of Ka cars between 10 and 11 years leave the TÜV without the sticker. For the third time in a row, the catastrophe-Ford is last on the list.”

For data nerds: Look at the godawful showing of the Volkswagen Sharan, the Seat Alhambra, and the Ford Galaxy. Same car. The first generation (tested here) were all made in the Ford/VW  joint venture plant in Palmela.

In the comments section of yesterday’s post on the ongoing Chevy Volt fire investigation, I noted that GM might

retrofit Volts with crash protection that can maintain battery integrity in all crash conditions… Mary Barra has said that GM is

“continuing to work with NHTSA to investigate additional actions to reduce or eliminate the potential of a post-crash electrical fire.”

I think some kind of update on the battery integrity front is inevitable, but we shall see…

Sure enough, today Reuters is running an interview with GM CEO Dan Akerson, who says that European deliveries of Opel-branded Volts (called Ampera) would be delayed pending NHTSA’s investigation, and that maybe, just possibly, the Volt’s battery might have to be redesigned. Says Akerson:

We want to assure the safety of our customers, of our buyers, and so we’re just going to take a time out, if you will, in terms of redesigning the battery possibly

Unfortunately, Akerson’s mangled syntax makes it tough to know if GM is really going to redesign the Volt’s battery, or what the “time out” in question means. He does tell the AP [via The WSJ [sub]] that a recall or buyback are options as well. Though redesigning the Volt’s battery could be expensive and devastating for sales, GM’s current post-crash safety protocol is incredibly human resources-intensive, and likely very costly as well. And the fact that GM is even considering redesigning the Volt for safety a year after its release is going to create a huge sales and marketing challenge anyway. Volt production edged down by 199 units in November, and now GM’s sales boss Don Johnson tells the Detroit News that the Volt will miss its 10,000 unit 2011 sales goal. At this point, GM may just want to take a mulligan on the Volt’s first year, redesign the battery, and relaunch the thing.

We’re all aware that buying a first-year car can be risky, especially early in its production run. But how soon does the risk go away? Conversely, a new car model can initially seem problem free, only to have a common problem pop up once the cars have a few thousand miles on them. To cover both scenarios, TrueDelta promptly updates its car reliability stats four times a year, not just once a year after a half-year delay. Our recently updated reliability stats over owner experiences through the end of September 2011.

Put another way, the stats you’ll find elsewhere cover the same time period TrueDelta’s did two updates ago, back in May. How much difference can half a year make? In the case of some new Fords, quite a bit. A year ago the Fiesta had a reported repair frequency of 130 repair trips per 100 cars per year, about three times the average. Six months ago this had improved to 102, still much worse than average but heading in the right direction. With the latest update it’s 66 and within the range we consider “about average,” if still a little on the high side. Our earliest data for the 2012 Ford Focus suggested that it might similarly have a buggy launch, but after including more recent months its stat is 42 repair trips per 100 cars per year, very close to the average. Ford appears to have fixed the early bugs very quickly. But not quickly enough: other sources, using survey data from last spring, will report “worse than average” for at least the next year.

The Chevrolet Cruze appears to have suffered a similar fate. With our latest update, it’s better than average, with a score of 24. Three months ago its repair frequency was about twice as high, 51. We didn’t have enough data six months ago. Judging from other sources, the repair frequency was even higher then, perhaps around 100. Thanks to quarterly updates, though, we won’t be reporting that the car remains “much worse than average” for the next year.

This update also includes our first reliability stats for an electric car, the Nissan LEAF. Only 16 cars this time around—we’ll have far more with the next update, in February—but notably none have reported a problem that could not be fixed by updating the software (one software bug affected the air conditioning system). Will the LEAF turn out to be as reliable as the Prius, which is among the most reliable models in the survey? With 41 owners reporting for the 2011 Prius, not a single one reported a non-software repair.

We’ll update these stats again in February. The more people participate, the more models we can cover and the more precise these results will be.
To view the updated repair trips per year stats:

Car Reliability Survey results

And for the percentage of cars that required no repairs or 3+ repair trips in the past year:

Repair odds stats

Come across something interesting? Have a question? Post it in the comments.

Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta.com, an online source of automotive pricing and reliability data. 

TTAC has received the following protocol, developed by GM in the wake of the June Volt fire at a NHTSA facility in Wisconsin, from a GM source and has confirmed its legitimacy with a second GM source. Though the procedure may be refined based on the findings of NHTSA’s latest round of tests, it gives a good picture of what GM currently does to ensure the safety of Volt driver and passengers as well as rescue workers, towing company workers and salvage yards. And, I have to say, it puts some of my fears about this safety scare to rest. It hadn’t occurred to me that GM’s Onstar system could provide opportunities to respond to crashes in real time, and apparently the system provides a wide variety of data with which GM’s “corporate SWAT team” can tailor its response to any Volt crash event. Hit the jump for the full procedure.

• Chevy Volt sends Onstar message of just occurred crash event.
• Onstar team notified of Volt crash and immediately implements standard crash protocol to assist vehicle operator
• Onstar immediately pulls key crash criteria from crash notification, i.e. vehicle speed, vehicles conditions (rollover), etc
• Onstar team notifies Volt Battery Team Leader of crash event including key vehicle conditions
• Volt Battery team leader works with Onstar to ping Volt and check additional data if appropriate (higher severity crash events, battery data, etc)
• Volt Battery team Leader determines if high crash severity standards met for depowering or if there is any question about battery severity level.  If yes to either, Battery team representative is sent to crash site
• Volt Battery team works with Volt advisor to contact Vehicle Owner and/or determine vehicle location
• Volt Battery representative obtains approval from owner and then proceeds to investigate the crashed Volt and depowers battery if deemed necessary
• Post Crash Volt stable and ready for disposition

NHTSA has has opened a formal defect investigation into the Chevrolet Volt, on the grounds that

 Intrusion in a crash may damage the battery, which may result in a substantial thermal reaction and fire

We knew that NHTSA was already looking in to this type of defect after an earlier test incident, but the official investigation resume [PDF] lists three separate thermal events that have occurred as a result of NHTSA tests. Hit the jump for the official explanation of this sequence of events.

On May 12, 2011, NHTSA performed a NCAP side pole impact test, followed by a post impact rollover test on a Chevrolet Volt. In connection with that testing, NHTSA has identified the potential for intrusion damage to the battery
which may result in a substantial thermal reaction and fire. Twenty-one days after the May 12, 2011 testing, delayed thermal heating and pressure release resulted in a fire that consumed the Chevrolet Volt and three other vehicles in close proximity at the test facility.

During the week of November 14, 2011, NHTSA performed follow-up battery-level tests to simulate the incident. NHTSA performed three tests simulating the mechanical damage to a battery pack observed from the first incident. Two of the three tests produced thermal events, including fire. Because of these test results, NHTSA has opened this investigation to examine the potential risks involved from intrusion damage to the battery in the Chevrolet Volt, in coordination with the agency’s ongoing review of the emerging technology involved in electric vehicle

A more extensive NHTSA press release notes

NHTSA is not aware of any roadway crashes that have resulted in battery-related fires in Chevy Volts or other vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries. However, the agency is concerned that damage to the Volt’s batteries as part of three tests that are explicitly designed to replicate real-world crash scenarios have resulted in fire. NHTSA is therefore opening a safety defect investigation of Chevy Volts, which could experience a battery-related fire following a crash. Chevy Volt owners whose vehicles have not been in a serious crash do not have reason for concern.

GM’s response [via Phil Lebeau/Twitter]:

The Volt is safe & doesn’t present undue risk as part of normal operation, right after a severe crash.

This is the defense that GM has been using throughout this NHTSA/Volt fire investigation, and to some extent it bears a lot of similarity to Toyota’s defense against the test results trumpeted by Professor David Gilbert. The argument is that the investigator is creating defects through conditions that would not exist in normal use. The problem with GM’s position is that the safety protocols it wants NHTSA to follow in order to not prevent these kinds of fires apparently haven’t been circulated. As GM’s spokesman put it last week

We had a process [for draining the battery] internally but I don’t believe it was shared with anyone. The incident with NHTSA raised awareness that we had to develop a procedure and alert all stakeholders.

And based on the fact that NHTSA’s press release on this defect investigation lists the agency’s tips for post-crash safety procedures for plug-in vehicles, it seems that this is its major concern. What’s strange is that GM made quite the fuss about its Volt first responder training (see video at top) when the car was launched. That this issue, and the necessary safety protocol response to it, seemed to slip through the cracks when that program was developed is not encouraging.

TTAC has long held that reviews of press cars made available by manufacturers at launches and press fleets must be complimented by reviews of vehicles acquired from dealer lots. It’s been a controversial position at times, and I’ve had to do battle with OEMs as recently as a few months ago to explain why dealer car impressions matter. Today, Consumer Reports is proving the point by revealing

When VW dropped off an early media car this summer, I remember looking at the trunk and saying to myself “well, at least both of the cheap hinges are dressed up with plastic covers, unlike the Jetta, which just has plastic on the side with the wiring.” As you can see in these two photos from Car & Driver and Edmunds it appears that the Passats in VW’s press fleet have covers on the hinges.

But not that Passat you just bought. No, your new Passat isn’t as nicely finished as the press version.

Like all the vehicles we put through testing, Consumer Reports buys retail samples at a car dealership. I personally purchased the Passat TDI we’re testing. (We also bought a 2.5 SE and a 3.6 SEL Premium.) As you can see in our images, none of the Passats have the two plastic covers found on the press cars. Consumers apparently only get a cover for the wiring loom hinge; the other one goes bare.

Interestingly, we had a somewhat similar issue with VW when a Passat press car proved to be equipped in a spec that is not actually available at dealerships (V6 with 17-inch wheels). When we noticed the discrepancy (and by we, I mean Michael Karesh, of course), we asked VW how we had received a non-representative model, to which they replied that press fleet vehicles were “early builds” from the new Nashville plant, and therefore not necessarily in market-ready spec. Which is a reason, but not an excuse: the media can only serve consumers well if we’re given representative cars to review. So, while these discrepancies are all relatively minor, details matter when you’re spending upwards of $20k on something. Hopefully VW and the rest of the industry will learn from this experience and make greater efforts to equip their media cars exactly to dealer spec. One also hopes that Motor Trend has driven at least one Passat that’s not from a press fleet…

Three years ago I suggested that Detroit win back car buyers by doing something no one seemed to be doing: provide customer care deserving of the name. In a similar vein, Steve Lang recently asked readers whether manufacturers or the government should do more when a model commonly suffers from an expensive problem. Well, according to an article in Automotive News this week GM has strongly encouraged its dealers to pick up the tab on more out-of-warranty repairs to reward and create loyalty.

According to the article, the bottleneck hasn’t been GM—the customer care money has been there, but dealers have been too tight with it because of fears that GM would punish them if they spent it. Why did dealers have these fears in the first place? The article doesn’t say. The important thing isn’t how these fears came to exist, but that they’re currently unwarranted. One dealer calls the new “open pocketbook” approach to keeping customers happy a “seismic shift.” Problem solved?

Not so fast. Steve and I identified the problem: people are worried about having to pay big money because of faulty engineering or manufacturing on the part of the manufacturer. The solution I proposed: clearly state that repair costs will be covered whenever a problem reaches a certain threshold. I suggested two such thresholds, 10 percent before 100,000 miles and 20 percent before 120,000 miles (which is how far most people seem to now expect a car to go without expensive repairs). The specifics aren’t critical. They can be sorted out by market researchers and actuaries based on how common a problem has to become before it achieve “they all do that” status. (My latest, not yet expensive personal example: the aluminum hood on my 40,000-mile 2008 Ford Taurus X is corroding. I drop by the Ford dealer, and it turns out “they all do that, Expeditions too. To help we’ll refinish it at cost, $300.”) The key condition: the manufacturer would provide owners with complete confidence that they wouldn’t be stuck with the cost of fixing expensive common problems.

GM’s latest policy does not do this. Instead, it seems very similar to “customer care” as it has existed for years, though possibly with better odds. As before, it’s up to the dealer to decide whether or not a particular customer deserves the care. Didn’t buy the car new from them, or didn’t have all maintenance performed in their shop? Then you might be no more likely to receive “assistance” than you were before. This is what the article means about “rewarding loyalty.” The flipside is “punishing disloyalty.”
Nowhere does it say that GM is providing the care because they made a mistake at any point. In fact, the article strongly implies the opposite. Two cases are described. In one, a Chevrolet dealer covered the cost of replacing the door hinge on a ten-year-old pickup with 317,000 miles. In the other, the dealer picked up the cost of fixing a wheel that had suffered damage from an impact. These two cases share critical similarities, probably not by happenstance. In both GM was clearly NOT at fault. GM made no mistake. In both cases no reasonable customer would expect GM to pay for anything. GM did them a favor. Later they can return the favor by buying another GM car from this dealer.

Not mentioned: the Saturn VUE owners highlighted yesterday. Or, to give a more recent example, the Lambda crossover owners that have had to deal with persistent water leaks (though, to GM’s credit, it has bought back many affected vehicles). The problem Steve and I raised—common expensive repairs due to a fault in how the car was engineered or manufactured—is ignored. Addressing this problem would require that GM admit that it occasionally makes mistakes. And, for legal or other reasons, it’s still not willing to do this. No car manufacturer is.

I can see how the new policy, since it intensifies the traditional “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” game, might further encourage people to get all of their service work done at dealerships. And it might help GM retain some existing customers who would otherwise defect to the manufacturer. But it won’t do much to help GM gain new customers. People who aren’t on close terms with a dealer have every reason to remain as wary of GM (and other manufacturers) as they have been. Without a clearly stated out-of-warranty assistance policy, one that doesn’t rely on the dealer to arbitrarily decide on a case-by-case basis who gets help and who does not, car owners could, and likely will, continue to get badly burned by the thousands.

Remember the video of Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn testing the quality of the new Hyundai i30? Thanks to Autobild, we’ve found a companion video from the Frankfurt Show, in which Winterkorn, along with VW Chairman Ferdinand Piech, gives the once-over to the new European-market Honda Civic. According to Autobild, Piech kept his nickname “Fugen-Ferdi” (Gap-Ferdi) relevant by checking the new Civic’s panel gaps. And, in contrast to the Hyundai video, the intelligible portions of Winterkorn’s commentary were less than entirely complimentary. The German magazine reports

A member of the VW entourage says that “(Honda) has had good role models.” But the big boss played down the praise for VW with a smile, and responded generously “they were once a role model for us.”

Note the use of the past tense, then contrast with Winterkorn’s reaction to the Hyundai. In just two videos you can see the balance of automotive power shifting…

In contrast to some of the button-laden plastic wastelands out there, the z3M keeps it simple: window controls (located on the console for easy LHD-RHD conversions), a 12V outlet, seat-heater controls, an A/C button, A recirc button and a stability control off button (the largest of the bunch). Then you get three old-fashioned, chrome-ringed analog displays (a clock, a volt-meter and an oil-temperature gauge), three simple HVAC control knobs and a simple stereo head-unit. A minimum of controls in a simple, stripped down environment. And though none of the buttons fall especially readily to hand, there are so few they quickly become second nature to operate. In short, it keeps you focused on driving rather than fiddling with distractions.

I bring up the M Coupe as an example, because it represents the opposite of what AN [sub] says is driving suppliers to the center stack. Nobody’s making money off of better knobs or switches, the “center stack gold rush” is all about adding electronic systems, displays, gadgets and gizmos into the mix. In short, my ideal center stack is wildly out-of-touch with where the industry is headed. This is not an uncommon position for an auto writer to find himself in, and it’s why I’m thankful for you, the Best and Brightest. Feel free to share your ideal center stack, or if you’re more of a glass-half-full person, your least-favorite. But do try to come up with some recent examples which show the industry how to move forward technologically without overwhelming the driver with confusion and distraction. As the MyFordTouch episode proves, this is one area that the industry could use more insight into…

Thanks in part to the help of people from TTAC, TrueDelta received a record number of responses to July’s Car Reliability Survey—over 22,300. Updated car reliability stats have been posted to the site for 570 model / model year / powertrain (where warranted) combinations. With partial results for another 464 cars, the total is now over 1,000. These stats include car owner experiences through the end of June 2011, making them over a year ahead of some other sources.

Among 2011s for which we received enough responses, the redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee is the only one that’s clearly worse than average thanks to common problems with the optional air suspension (also a common problem area in Mercedes SUVs), sunroof rattles, and a transmission shudder. Get one without the air suspension or the sunroof, and the risk of problems goes way down. The new Buick Regal might also be worse than average, but we have only limited data for this model so far.

The 2011 Fiesta improved to “about average” this time around, so there don’t seem to be many new problems with the car once the initial glitches are taken care of. We’ll have initial results for the 2011 Explorer and 2012 Focus the next time around, in November, with a preview for participants in October. Most new or revised models for which we received enough responses are also near the average, including the BMW 5-Series, BMW X5 / X6, Chevrolet Cruze, Ford Edge, Honda Odyssey, Hyundai Sonata, Infiniti M, Kia Sorento, Nissan JUKE, and Volkswagen Jetta.

Three new 2011s clearly had clean starts: the Honda CR-Z, Hyundai Elantra, and Toyota Sienna.

We’ve also updated statistics for the percentage of cars that required no repairs or 3+ repair trips in the past year. These statistics can be more useful than the averages.

We’ll update these stats again in November. The more people participate, the more models we can cover and the more precise these results will be.

To view the updated results:

Car Reliability Survey results

Repair odds stats

Come across something interesting? Have a question? Post it in the comments.

Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive reliability and pricing data.

When an American wants to attract attention to his car & dealer woes, the tech-savvy slighted customer sets up a [name_of_dealer]sucksrealbad.com, and protests from the privacy of his webserver. The traditional types take up position in front of said sales outlet with some placards.

In China, the preferred mode of protest is by farm animal. A Chinese man called bull on his car and dealer.

Carnewschina brings us the story of a man from of Hangzhou who is dissatisfied with his brand new Volvo XC60 SUV and the lack of dealer service. The man does not seem to be on the J.D.Power panel, so he used different means to voice his dissatisfaction. He had his troubled XC60 pulled through the city by an ox. Before you say “gee, Geely:” It was an imported, Made-in-Belgium Volvo.

The text on the placard describes the issues. Says Carnewschina: “The big red character is ‘niu’. It means ‘ox’ or ‘cow’ but also, like in many other countries, ‘stupid’.”

True. Also, any connotations with farmers are deeply demeaning amongst Chinese city-dwellers. Note that “niu” stands for anything bovine in Chinese, be it ox, bull, or female cow. The word needs to be used with care. Indiscriminate usage can cause a black eye, or worse, it can be understood as admiration: “Niu bi” literally means “cow pussy” in Chinese, but as the seminal text on the topic explains:

“Niubi is a term of approbation, perhaps the greatest such term in colloquial Chinese. Niubi is an attitude, a lifestyle: a complete lack of concern over what other people think of you, and the resulting freedom to do whatever you please. It is knowing exactly what you’re capable of, making the decision to act, and to hell with the consequences. It is the essence of ‘cool’, but taken to the nth degree, and with a dirty word thrown in.”

This is a big topic in China, so big that books are written about it.

To avoid confusion between criticism and acclaim, other Chinese use farm animals which are deeply insulting without even the slightest possibility of ambiguity. This man, also documented by Carnewschina, expressed his anger at Range Rover and its dealer with a pair of donkeys. This is how you handle things if you are a middle class Chinese, just affluent enough to afford an imported car that shows that you are not a farmer.

If you are really rich and totally niubi, then you settle your differences with Lamborghini and your Gallardo dealer like that. It will pulverize any chance of a warranty refund. But it makes for great YouTube.

Some things have been repeated so often that many people have come to accept them as facts. I tripped across one of these in Bob Lutz’s new book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters (review on the way). Lutz offers “a curiosity I have observed several times at various stages of my career”: when the domestics rebadge an import, the resulting model has scored “way lower” in Consumer Reports reliability survey. This has been Exhibit A in the argument, also repeated by Lutz, that import owners under-report problems on surveys in order to “retroactively justify the wisdom of their purchase.” I’ve come across this claim about CR so many times in the past that it just had to be true. Then I checked.

The cars Lutz mentions: Eclipse / Laser, Corolla / Prizm, and Matrix / Vibe. I happen to have some Consumer Reports annual auto issues from the years in question. In the 1992 issue, the Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon sometimes scored lower than the Mitsubishi Eclipse, and sometimes scored higher, depending on the model year and powertrain. The differences are mixed and never substantial. CR pooled the samples for the Diamond Star hatches beginning with the 1993 issue, so the scores for the triplets were absolutely identical from that point on.

Also in the 1992 issue, the Prizm scored lower than the Toyota Corolla, but just by a little, not “way lower” as Lutz states. In the 1995 and 1996 issues the Prizm actually scored higher than the Corolla, with the margin in the former year a substantial ten points.

With the Vibe and Matrix, Lutz gets his snark on. “Have you been paying attention? Test question: which of the ‘twins’ performed better in quality surveys?” Well, in the 2005 issue the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix had virtually the same scores, with both better than average. In the 2009 issue the Matrix scored a little higher than the Vibe, but in the 2007 and 2008 issues the reverse was true. In fact, in the 2008 issue the Vibe had the highest score in the entire “wagons and hatchbacks” category. It seems that Lutz either wasn’t paying attention or saw the unfair playing field he wanted to see, didn’t check the facts either way (always a good idea), and consequently failed his own test.

Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive pricing and reliability data.

“New GM did not assume liability for old GM’s design choices, conduct or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty, and its terms expressly preclude money damages,” the response says.

The suit “is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM.”

The suit alleges that GM issued a service bulletin for police-fleet 2007-8 Impalas, which were eating through rear tires due to faulty spindle rods. In that bulletin, GM instructed its dealers to replace the rods as well as rear tires, where appropriate. But GM argues that police versions are different than civilian models, and has not issued a bulletin for regular-duty Impalas… and now, on top of it all, its arguing that the “new” post-bailout GM “only agreed to warranty obligations of cars assembled before 2009.” As many as 400,000 Impalas could be affected by the spindle rod issue (which GM says is a manufacturing problem, not a design defect), which could cause rear tires to wear out in as few as 6,000 miles. And despite the clear evidence that GM knew about the problem and fixed police-fleet versions, the bailout liability dump defense could just work: at least one lawsuit (regarding OnStar failure) has already been dismissed on the grounds that New GM is not liable for Old GM’s mistakes. The bailout, it seems, is the shafting that just keeps on shafting…

For some time now, there’s been something of a low-scale war going on between OEMs and aftermarket parts suppliers just below the national media radar. The issue: whether or not aftermarket structural parts are as good as OEM parts. Ford has been a major proponent of the OEM-only approach, making the video you see above in hopes of proving that aftermarket parts aren’t up to the job. But the aftermarket is firing back, and they’ve made their own video in direct response to this one, which you can view after the jump.

The video above, made by the Automotive Body Parts Association, directly challenges the findings of Ford’s video experiments, arguing that they prove only that “motorists should avoid slowly driving into madmen wielding reciprocating saws.” In a press release, Co-Chair of the ABPA Legislation and Regulation Committee Eileen A. Sottile lays out her industry’s position

Time and again the aftermarket industry has demonstrated the safety and quality of its products, yet some car companies seem determined to counter scientific facts with fear-mongering. OEs cannot credibly argue that only their branded parts can provide safety, especially when it comes to components that play a very small role in crash energy management. If car company safety systems cannot handle a wide range of real world crash conditions and material differences in minor replacement parts then they are not robustly engineered and as such are a significant threat to the consumers.

You can read a compilation of material on the debate over at bodypartbusiness.com if you want to dive deeper into the argument, but it seems to me that the aftermarket is always going to face a single challenge again and again: branding. Whereas the OEMs can put their brands on their products, consumers will always be wary of parts made by different companies. Some consumers will always buy off-brand in hopes of a deal, but when safety is at stake, trust is of the utmost importance. Buyers trust brands, whereas the aftermarket’s myriad companies can’t all have the prominence of, say, a Ford… and they can’t all guarantee the exact same quality either. Still, that doesn’t mean the OEMs aren’t unnecessarily fearmongering…

Our buddy Mark Whinton from Carquestions, who always manages to find the obscure problems with today’s complex automobiles, wonders: why can’t the new Jeep Grand Cherokee tell if it’s battery isn’t being charged? As he points out, this omission could leave drivers stranded if their accessory belt were to break, without ever warning them of the problem. Is Mark nit-picking? Possibly, but in this business, one lesson gets learned again and again: you gotta sweat the details. In light of Mark’s research we’re as curious as he is: did Chrysler simply overlook this, or is this a case of conscious decontenting? Over to you, ChryCo…

Mercedes-Benz is currently trying to recapture the number one position in global luxury sales, but  a quality problem on its home turf in Germany seems to be undermining confidence in the brand. Autobild reports that the M272 V6 and M273 V8 engines used a sintered steel timing chain gear made of various materials starting in 2004, but switched to conventional steel in 2006, eliminating the problem with gear wear. The problem: nobody seems to know how many vehicles built between 2004 and 2006 are affected. Mercedes claims, based on secret internal defect tracking, that one percent, or about 1,500 vehicles, are affected. If you have a vehicle with one of these engines built between 04 and 06 and your check engine light comes on, Mercedes encourages you to visit your M-B dealer rather than an independent shop, as Mercedes is offering free repairs to affected customers. And as Autobild’s Matthias Mötsch argues, when your motto is “the best or nothing,” the only answer to a situation like this is to fix 100% of the defects for free.

My 2012 Honda Civic review concluded that “the design is clunky, the materials are cut-rate, and the driving experience is so dreadfully dull that even a Toyota Prius is a blast in comparison.” Could this car have inspired the owner evangelism that made Honda a major industry player? Highly unlikely. Though most commenters shared my severe disappointment with the car, at least one found the “bashing” to be “amusing.” Perhaps Honda similarly shrugged off my critique. Some of the big car mags have ranked the new Civic fairly high in recent comparos, so by picking and choosing who they pay attention to Honda’s leaders might maintain the illusion that they aren’t hopelessly off course.

Well, if a TTAC review didn’t provide them with a strong enough dose of reality, perhaps this will: as recounted in the September 2011 issue, the new Civic tested so low in Consumer Report’s road test that they won’t recommend it. Among other things, they note that the redesigned car’s interior is cheap, the steering is devoid of feedback, and the ride feels unsettled. They also note that “the Civic’s sporty character is gone.”

A Civic that Consumer Reports cannot recommend? If this doesn’t provide Honda with a clue, I don’t know what will.

[UPDATE: Hit the jump for CR's press release]

YONKERS, NY —The highly anticipated redesigned Honda Civic LX, whose predecessors have often been Consumer Reports’ highest rated small sedans as well as Top Picks in five of the last 10 years, now scores too low to be Recommended by the leading automotive testing organization.

The redesigned Civic LX’s score dropped a whopping 17 points to a mediocre 61 from the previous generation’s very good 78. It scored second-to-last in CR’s ratings of 12 small sedans, followed only by the recently redesigned Volkwagen Jetta. Consumer Reports’ testers found the 2012 Civic to be less agile and with lower interior quality than its predecessor. It also suffers from a choppy ride, long stopping distances, and pronounced road noise. On the positive side, the Civic provides decent rear-seat room, and it achieved 30 mpg overall, which gives it the second-best fuel economy in its class—behind only the Toyota Corolla’s 32 mpg.

“While other models like the Hyundai Elantra have gotten better after being redesigned, the Civic has dropped so much that now it ranks near the bottom of its category,” said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports’ Auto Test Center in East Haddam, CT

The test group also included sedan and hatchback versions of the redesigned-for-2012 Ford Focus and the hatchback version of the Kia Forte, which both scored Very Good. The Focus was fun to drive and more polished than its predecessor, with the type of agile handling, supple ride, and solid feel expected from a compact sports sedan. But a snug rear seat, complicated controls, and annoying behavior by the automatic transmission took a toll on its score. The 5-Door hatchback is Kia’s latest addition to the Forte line, and is well-equipped, relatively roomy, and offers a lot for the money. But its noise isolation, ride, and interior quality are middling.

The issue also features tests of two versions of the Ford F-150 pickup, perennially the best-selling model in the U.S. Freshened for 2011, it’s quieter and more refined than earlier versions, with an improved ride, and better acceleration.

Competition in the small sedan segment is intense with many new or redesigned entries this year. The redesigned-for-2011 Hyundai Elantra tops CR’s ratings with its impressive fuel economy, roomy interior, and strong value. The new-for-2011 Chevrolet Cruze is much more refined than previous General Motors small cars but fuel economy suffers from its heavy weight. Redesigned for 2011, the Volkswagen Jetta, like the Civic, dramatically dropped in overall score in CR’s Ratings. Some older-design small sedans, like the highly-efficient Toyota Corolla, the roomy and quiet Nissan Sentra, and the sporty Mazda3 remain competitive.

Another weekend has yielded yet another review of the new Ford Focus [this one from the NYT] that’s generally impressed with car but gives it huge negatives for its unruly, efficiency-tuned PowerShift dual-clutch transmission. TTAC’s been tracking PowerShift discontent since the transmission debuted in Europe three years ago, but America’s smoldering dislike of the dual-clutcher has only erupted into flames in recent months, when Consumer Reports, TrueDelta and JD Power all dinged Ford for PowerShift issues as well as MyFordTouch teething woes. And, in the teeth of mounting criticism of its dual-clutch transmission, WardsAuto reports that Ford has

sent dealers a memo with instructions to help sales and service personnel enlighten consumers about the behavioral nuances of the fuel-saving 6-speed automatic gearbox…

Although the Ford gearboxes perform as intended, customers relate the frequency and abruptness of gearshifts to their experiences with conventional automatic transmissions. Hence, a perceived problem, the auto maker says.

“What we really want to convey is their experience is something different,” [Fiesta brand manager Sherryl] Brightwell tells Ward’s, claiming there is nothing “wrong” with the car.

Because it’s not a transmission problem, it’s an enlightenment problem! Nothing to worry about Ma’am, it’s just a little bit grabby between the second and third chakras. Seriously though, TTAC wants to know what Ford thinks consumers need to know before they reach the seventh level of divine PowerShift acceptance. So don’t spin your Dharmic wheels, TTAC-reading Ford dealers… shoot us a copy [contact form here, anonymity guaranteed] and we’ll let TTAC’s Best and Brightest meditate on the problem as well as its proposed solution.

With a new generation of BMW 3-Series on the way, you expect to see plenty of photos of it testing on the Nürburgring’s Nordschleife. What you don’t expect to see: photos of it being towed through the “Green Hell.” According to Auto Motor und Sport, this prototype’s breakdown on the ‘ring is “unusual at this stage of development,” but the German publication notes that the defect that caused it is unknown. They simply write that, in the midst of a test drive, the next-gen Dreier “ran out of breath.”  Hopefully the boys at BMW will be able to suss out the problem before the new Dreier launches in Europe next year… nobody likes to see a car like the 3-Series making its way through the Nürburgring on a trailer.

Clear your mind, look deep into the results of the 2011 JD Power Initial Quality Survey, and what will you find? Based on my limited understanding of the human mind, I’d guess “something that helps prop up your established perspective on the world of cars.” But hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Meanwhile, lest we take any of this too seriously, let’s remember the wise words of Michael Karesh, who noted on last year’s results that

J.D. Power continues to assert that a low number of problems during the first 90 days of ownership should allay any concerns a car buyer might have about a car’s quality. But of course car buyers are most concerned about how a car will hold up in the long run.

Initial quality sometimes correlates with long-term durability, but there’s only a partial connection between the two. Initial quality can result from solid engineering, which will also benefit long-term durability. But strong initial quality can also follow from thorough inspections at the plant or dealer. Such inspections can catch and fix problems that happen to occur before delivery, but aren’t likely to reduce problems down the road.

Karesh’s seminal IQS critique can be found here.

Ford’s President of the Americas Mark “MKF” Fields (sorry, the joke is just too funny to let go of) is responding to recent allegations of slipping quality by Consumer Reports and JD Power, by telling Bloomberg that

We’re largely back on track on some of these early issues

He’s referring specifically to issues with the MyFordTouch system that has been the central issue in the recent quality flap, and the fix for that isn’t particularly complicated.

Ford has reworked software on MyFordTouch to prevent random rebooting that had afflicted the system, said Sue Cischke, vice president of environmental and safety engineering. The touch controls also have been recalibrated to respond more quickly to a driver’s touch, she said.

Ford is encouraging dealers to spend as much as 40 minutes training drivers to use the system.

“If you’re trying to figure it out as you’re driving, obviously that’s not a good thing to do,” Cischke said.

Ford’s problem, it turns out, isn’t so much a product quality problem as a customer quality problem… because why would consumers need 40 minutes of training on a system Ford insists they are “demanding” (despite, it must be pointed out, the government’s murmured objections)? Unfortunately for Ford, Michael Karesh argues convincingly that Ford’s quality problems go beyond the MyFordTouch issues… but because its quality was so weak before Mulally took over, at least Ford (and the “PR friendly” auto media) can continue to claim “improvement.”