"Let's Talk About GM Quality"
GM’s North American VP for quality, Rick Spina, latches on to the latest JD Power IQS with a blog post at Fastlane titled “What Quality Gap?” and a webchat inviting every pissed-off GM owner to bitch about their quality problems.
For all the naysayers out there … get this … in the J.D. Power & Associates 2009 Initial Quality Study, Cadillac, our flagship brand, improved by 19 percent since last year’s study and comes in third, just behind Lexus and Porsche. That’s pretty darn good considering brands typically improve around 5 percent a year. And Chevy, our volume leader, eliminates the quality gap to join company with very competitive import brands like Honda and Toyota. Simply put, the quality gap is history.
Oh really?
The obvious retort is that “initial quality” is a meaningless category and that JDP tends to favor firms that hire it for consulting duties. And the point comes up early in the Spina-hosted webchat: “When will GM stop using ‘Initial quality’ as a benchmark for their vehicles? How about ‘Best long term reliability and quality,'” asks commenter “Nate.”
We’re never going to stop because it’s one important measure, but using initial quality is not our only measure of quality. Just several months ago, we had good response to rolling out a JD Power dependability study; customer feedback on vehicles that are 3-years-old. In fact, one of our four core brands Buick was atop the study. We pay just as much attention to long term dependability as we do initial quality.
Besides, isn’t quality an issue only in the mind of the beholder? Spina spins it that way.
personally I don’t see door closing sound as highly important, but I respect that it’s an important indicator to you and other customers, so we work hard on it. What’s important to you is important to us.
Which contrasts nicely with GM’s “our products are desireable, dammit” talking points. Lacking an internal compass to distinguish what constitutes a good door-closing sound, or other desireable qualities, GM has no choice but paint itself as a good listener. As if focus group mania hadn’t done enough damage ’round Ren Cen way in the past. Besides, GM’s long history of questionable product quality isn’t the only thing that makes consumers wary of the General.
By lavishing PR praise on decades of sub-par products, GM has lost the credibility necessary to simply tell consumers that quality has improved. Only a spontaneous rediscovery of GM’s product desirability will be enough to change consumer opinion. And if that were happening, GM would be able to point to sales, rather than a meaningless “initial quality” survey.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
Bonneville - there's no doubting that GM builds a class leading v8 whether in their trucks or the Corvette. GM has really put a lot of engineering in develping it's v8 engines technology and has done well but still has the stigma of OHV hanging over its head. Look at GM's OHV v6s have almost finally gone by the wayside and outside of those who love those engines they have never been anything special. Frankly the standard Ecotec engine is really a non factor compared to most other inline 4 engines - this is in NVH, power, economy, engine noise, etc. Really the only way the Ecotec engine is laudible for any credit is when you add forced induction. But then you have to consider the competitions other 4 cylinder forced fed engines (these include: Evo IX, A4 2.0T, Neon SRT-4, Mazdaspeed 2.3T, Saab T4, WRX boxer turbo - just to name a few). The US built Ariel Atoms orginially came with Ecotec NA and forced fed 4's but now they are sold with the Honda CTR engine that they originally were designed for back in the UK. I've yet to drive a CTS with the new v6 - only have driven the CTS V (fun car) - so can't comment on that one.
dealership experience-HA! Piston slap issue-"They all do it" Dexclog clunk in steering rack-"lube up the I-shaft" The GM 100K warranty-brought to you by the letters N,P, and F. (No Problem Found)