I totally agree with your assessment. However, what these studies do show you is that there is at least no glaring problems. I have owned plenty of American cars that have had problems that made themselves known within the first 30 days.
 
So at least Ford and company can keep them happy for 90 days. A place to start on the road to relevance again.

You what the person who buys a Russian-made car does when they get their purchase into their driveway? They crawl under the car and tighten up all the nuts and bolts that were left loose from the factory. Then they hope that the engine and transmission hold up for at least 30k miles before they have to do a rebuild. We are so spoiled by outstanding quality of modern American, Asian and European autos that initial quality studies seem to be unimportant. But I think they serve an important function by keeping auto makers on their toes.

I think J.D. Powers should call it the "Honeymoon Award." ...And then follow it up with the "7-year itch" award, or better still—the "3-year itch award," and see who's still around.

Agree Karl! The 90 day honeymoon is not a real quality test bank. How bout Ferrari, Maserati, Bentley, Aston.... Heck they can drive the car 500 miles for 90 days and no problems. They need at least one year ownership to be valid.

But if Toyota wins it, why is it considered a job well done?

Going by trends, the winners of IQS end up ranking on top on VDS (Vehicle dependability study)

Don't you think the owners of the "national club" cars would still be rating their car tops in all categories, even after a year? Lincoln and Buick owners may be guilty of inertia, but owners of the "national club" cars may be guilty of infatuation. I would think either group would skew the results.
 
Are these quality surveys used by shoppers? My impression is reputations for quality are spread by word of mouth, not surveys.

Agree mnorm1. Ultimately that's what I use (word of mouth/personal experiences -- if I can't find friends/relatives to supply this I use our own CarSpace/forums area).

I don't remember what my survey looked like (I just remember the crisp $1 bill :D ), but wasn't there objective as well as subjective components to the survey? Granted 90 days isn't enough elapsed time for even the first oil change so things like a botched rear main seal would go undetected but I wonder whether even the staunchest "club car" fans would say "I think I'll lie about the window glass that fell off its track."
 
As for me personally, a make/model's reliability/dependability ranks quite low on my priority list. As a matter fact, I could probably write a multi-part article on why it shouldn't matter to most people either.

I always thought this was a silly survey. I thought it was a lousy survey back when the Camry ranked at the top, because they're simply awful appliances for people who don't car about cars. I knew it was bogus when the Sonata ranked at the top because they still shed their parts after only three years. And I suspect that it's probably true with Ford as well. But a lot of people seem to think that a initial quality survey is a good indication of how properly a car is bolted together long-term. Contrary to what I've experienced, Toyota has fooled people into believing their cars are well built for years. Maybe Ford can get people to buy-into this thinking also by dropping press releases all over the place just like Toyota and Hyundai do.

90 days -- what a joke! (This from someone who owned an '80 Volvo 240 from 1982 to 2003!)

210,
But were you really satisfied? After all you only owned it for 84 ninety day periods.

Everyone I know with Camry has zero complaints. And these are not new cars either. I'd never buy one either because they just don;t excite me as a drivers car, but doesn;t mean they suck.
Sounds like jealousy.
 
Sorry, OT.
 
I grew up on Fords, only one ever disappointed me. My parents have had them with good luck as well. This may be petty news now, but it could also be a hint as to Fords efforts into building better cars. Hell, GM fans strung them along on their "Pro-domestic movement" and yet they were the first to leave them for dead, now look how the tides have taken a turn...
 
Good job.

folks this is not rocket science. Perhaps the name of the survey should be changed since so many people are up in arms about the time frame. The point of this survey (as I understand it) is to measure how well made cars are. The logic here is that cars with obvious build quality issues or squeaks/rattles will show their true colors within three months. This survey is a measure of quality control, not durability. One could reasonably assume that Ford (or whomever is on top) is doing a good job of ironing out the kinks in its vehicles before sending them to dealer's lots. That is all this survey is really telling people and if some think that info is useless that is fine. It doesnt mean the survey is stupid or that JD POwer is suggesting that after 90 days people can make a determination as to whether or not a vehicle is reliable.
 
"Of course that doesn't explain the Lincolns and Buicks, right? Actually it does, but in a different way. Those buyers tend to be older, and older buyers who have always bought a Lincoln or Buick pretty much equate to younger drivers on their third Miata, Mustang or 911. "These are the greatest cars ever!"
 
This is by far one of the most ridiculous arguments out there and many an import syncophant shares this philosophy. Instead of just accepting that Buicks just MIGHT be reliable people will argue that old people are so mentally feeble, loyal and underexposed that they have low standards for reliability and high regard for their crappy Buicks. Although I'm far from 55, much less 65, I do think its silly to presume that people of that age are incapable of determining when their car is unreliable or not. I'm pretty sure the average owner of MBs, Jags, Lexus', etc. is well over 50 and brand loyal but I suspect no one would question the rankings of those vehicles in a similar survey.

Plenty of drivers over 50 buy Audis, and BMWs and Mercedes and Lexus vehicles because they are very car saavy and research what cars are doing well in the marketplace and have cutting edge design and technology and/or good quality ratings and/or good resale.
 
AND, plenty of drivers over 50 have bought the same brand for five decades and refuse to change.
 
I know this because I know people of both types. However, the Buick and Lincoln buyers I know personally (many of them are relatives) are simply less willing to "give another brand a chance" and this translates into a close-mindedness about how "good" their cars really are (or aren't).
 
A generalization? Yup. Accurate and true for the people who fit this demographic? Yup.

Yesterday, I came home from work and my 2 1/2 year old daughter asked me if we were going to the park, and I said YUP.
 
She promptly responded "YUP is for hicks daddy, you should say yes."
 
I laughed my ass off. I guess her preschool teacher is in overdrive.
 
Now back on topic. I would be willing to bet that 80% to 90% of Lincoln and Buick owners (not CAR RENTAL COMPANIES, lol) went to their dealerships to trade in their respective Lincolns and Buicks to get a new Lincoln or Buick. It is not that they are incapable, it is that they are satisfied. And that is fine.
 
That is why GM got rid of Olds. Their customers were coming back with their Ninety-eights and there was nothing to get. The Aurora was too out there for them and the Intrique as not smooth enough. I know this for a fact because my Grandmother owned Olds all her life until the discontinued the Eighty-Eight. Had to go with the LeSabre instead. And she was Happy ("best car I ever had").

"A generalization? Yup. Accurate and true for the people who fit this demographic? Yup."
 
That is hilarious. You have in depth knowledge about all Buick and Lincoln owners based on a few people you know personally? In today's marketplace I find that there are few people who insist on buying the same brand over and over again, and out of those that do most prefer import brands.
 
Even if we accept your questionable generalization, that doesnt really prove that Buicks and Lincolns are unreliable. What you are basically saying is that these devoted Buick and Lincoln fans are so ignorant that they dont even realize that by modern standards their cars are not reliable. There is no way to prove that and it doesnt even really make sense. If the brand you know and love sells you a junk car I would think you would be quick to let your disappointment be known. Knowledge about what cars are on the market has no bearing on your ability to tell if your car is reliable or unreliable at all. Your theory might fly when talking about 90 day satisfaction, but it doesnt when you consider that Buick does well in CR (well as good as any domestic can do) and JD Power long term surveys. In the end, its really just a bunch of excuses to dismiss brands that auto journalists generally dont like.
 
I doubt the Enclave is going to attract many "traditional" Buick owners so if it does well in one of these surveys I will be interested in hearing the excuses.
 
"Plenty of drivers over 50 buy Audis, and BMWs and Mercedes and Lexus vehicles because they are very car saavy and research what cars are doing well in the marketplace and have cutting edge design and technology and/or good quality ratings and/or good resale. "
 
Actually, I think most of them buy based on the badge and little else. quality ratings? If you are using that as a basis for buying a luxury car you probably wouldnt be getting an Audi or MB. Most surveys agree that they are lagging in quality. Just more proof that when people are shopping for a car that will impress their peers they could care less about the facts. MB has been substandard in quality ratings for a decade or so and their sales are still going strong, people dont care because they know owning one makes a statement (supposedly) about their status. Most people I know are so uneducated about cars that they have no clue about the latest design trends, cutting edge tech or anything else you can get in a "savvy person's" car as opposed to a crappy Buick.

"If the brand you know and love sells you a junk car I would think you would be quick to let your disappointment be known."
 
Okay, well, your thinking is wrong.
 
"Your theory might fly when talking about 90 day satisfaction, but it doesnt when you consider that Buick does well in CR (well as good as any domestic can do) and JD Power long term surveys."
 
No, that's exactly my point. They do well because the people evaluating the cars either don't know or don't car about the competition. They've bought Buicks or Lincolns since Eisenhower was in often and they, "...ain't switching now." This certainly doesn't represent every Buick or Lincoln buyer, but it certainly does represent a larger percentage of Buick and Lincoln buyers than, say, Toyota buyers (since Toyota didn't sell any cars in the U.S. during Eisenhower's presidency).
 
As usual you'll use this as yet another "You're just picking on a great GM brand" whine, but everyone else reading this blog knows people like this and knows what I'm talking about.

Karl as far as I know people who buy Camries normally as a rule are old people (over 50) and they refuse even to try anything else. It is from my personal experience. E.g. one my friend owns three Camries - one for wife, one for himself and another for daughter. When he bought his last one I asked him - lets try something different (e.g. Mazda6 or even Solara). He said no - I want only Camry.
 
Another guy - my coworker buys new Camries every three years. He does not even want to consider other cars.
 
Therefore according to YOUR THEORY - high reliability rating of Camry (as well as Accord) in CR is BS because these people being so loyal do not know how good cars can drive.
 
What is your say about Camry? Or you think that Buick owner are close minded retrograds and Camry owners are revolutioners.
 
So according to YOUR THEORY - high reliability rating of Camry (as well as Accord) in CR is due to these people being so loyal that they do not know how actually good car drive.
 
What you can say about that?

For each type of car there are individuals that love their cars so much they couldn't find anything wrong to say about it. And there are individuals that have been so loyal to a brand that they are indifferent to the competition. So indifferent that they are ignorant of the quality of the competition. They may not LOVE their cars, but their cars are appliances in the true sence of the word. This is not unique to cars, but with any consumer electronic or appliance.
 
I would add one more category of individuals on these theories. The Proud Man. This is the guy that does all the research and either based on research or intuition makes his decision and by God that decision is Gold. Despite later indications to the contrary they will stand by their choice, proof or experience be damned because to indicate that their car is somewhat disappointing would be a commantory upon their competance.
 
With that in mind. These individuals represent different percentages of the given brand customer base. If that is true, which brands would have the highest percentage? I postulate, Buick, Lincoln, Cadillac, Mercedes... All of these brands have been selling to same customer base for generations. And with the exception of Mercedes and maybe Cadillac now, their customers average age is over 48 years old.
 
No one is saying they are stupid. Just that they are indifferent to the competition and what they offer. So when asked on the survey the questions regarding power, responsiveness, styling, feature content, etc. They are clueless as to whether better value was present in the competition because their "value" is wrapped up in how much they got off the MSRP of their given brand.
 
If asked why they chose their Buick, or Lincoln they would say, "I have driven them for ...... years" There is nothing wrong with this attitude. But it is worthless when trying to use that data to somehow make an evaluation on the relative qualities between the brands.

haha... check out the LT blog posts for the Outlander and Compass, you might find a few of those people, brett (your second paragraph).
  
What really demonstrates the flaws in quality surveys is when you compare the scores of say, a Lincoln Navigator and Ford Expedition. Built on the same line and sharing majority of their parts, they should score about the same, but in reality they often don't. Consumer "perception" indeed. We need a ranking of the quality of the quality surveys.
  
I believe Lincolns and Buicks actually do typically hold together well. Why? Take the Lincoln Town Car. It was redesigned in 1998. It's now 2007, and it's still the same damn car, with barely more than a mild freshening in its life cycle. With 9 years under its belt and using the same tooling, Ford is able to iron out quality wrinkles. Mercedes, Audi and BMW tend to take technology risks, with Drive Dynamic seats, SMG transmissions, integrated cockpit information/navigation systems and night vision to name a few. It's common for the technology to trickle down after it matures - look at keyless start systems. Many of the problems experienced are often consumers' perception of a problem - they cannot figure it out or are simply dissatisfied with the operation. The Hummer H2 performed poorly initially - the "problem" it had was "poor fuel economy". Manufacturers should still be accountable for building cars that people can understand and use, but the surveys do a very poor job of separating actual reliability/quality from the perception of such.

savetheland -- you're right, plenty of people who buy Camry's and Accords are as close-minded as some Lincoln and Buick buyers. But I would argue the percentage number is higher for the domestics simply because the average age is higher simply because those brands are older and have a higher percentage of "it's all I've ever bought despite there being several new manufacturers in the last 40 years."
 
Brett -- AMEN! You basically just described why the Consumer Rating is ALWAYS higher than the Editors rating on this Web site. Self validation is a powerful force.

Karl you should read ‘Car’ written by Mary Walton. She described how close minded and ignorant Accord buyer's are actually are in quite humoristic terms.
 
Brett, I am not so sure that age of Mercedes buyer is less than 50 y.o. Mercedes buyers are no different from Buick or Lincoln buyers. They buy Mercedes just because of brand name. Another my coworker bought E-class 7 years ago and after that was swearing he will never buy another one again because of all of headache. I can attest that it was not the highest quality car. I think Mercedes is simply behind Lexus in term of quality and luxury (btw ARM agrees with me evidently). Lexus feels as a more expensive car. Mercedes still has some prestige but I cannot guarantee it will last long. Lexus will catch up and pass Mercedes sooner or later.
 
Yeah and guy still went and sheepishly bought another Mercedes – M-class this time - even of lower quality. He explained that it just wanted Mercedes no matter what. Also I doubt that you can call E-class or M-class style leaders either – both are pretty dull looking cars.

Save, I dont think Mercedes makes low quality vehicles its just that the reliability sucks. The materials and fit and finish are 2nd to none. Lexus is right with them in respects to fit and finish/ material quality, far ahead in reliability but the fall short in execution/design.

Honda, I don't know. Just sitting inside Lexus it feels more luxurous. And outside Lexus looks like better built and better painted than Mercedes, BMW or Cadillac. And now new Lexus models seem to be more stylish than Mercedes too. Since Lexus does not copy Mercedes anymore it also does not look as boring as Mecedes anymore. I do not like cars like Buick, Lexus or Mercedes so I am not biased one way or another.

Karl:
 
"As usual you'll use this as yet another "You're just picking on a great GM brand" whine, but everyone else reading this blog knows people like this and knows what I'm talking about."
 
Wrong. Actually, your initial comment was about Buick and Lincoln so this is hardly a "picking on GM" issue. I dont even like Lincoln products, but your logic is still flawed. In fact, it would make sense that Lincoln products would be reliable because until recently most Lincoln products were rather old and had been in production with few changes for years. I would imagine the Town Car is very reliable since its on an old platform and has been rarely changed over the years and thus Ford should have the problems worked out. Your assertion that a brand loyal car buyer cant recognize when a car is in the shop or not in the shop is totally baseless. You are saying that a person who has bought Buick since the 50s (wouldnt that person be will over 70 now?) is going to give Buick good ratings no matter what as if a long time owner cant tell when a car has been in the shop too many times and thats ridiculous. I have a sister in law with a camry and she is one of ever increasing number of people who swears by Toyotas and imports in general. Guess what? Her car has given her problems and she is NOT considering a Toyota for her next car. Granted, I'm sure she will swear until the day that she dies that American cars a crap and wouldnt be caught dead with one (for image reasons) but she wont be getting another Toyota. She was a big time sipper of Toyota Kool Aid until now, but she is very much aware of the fact that her Toyota has cost her time and money.
 
savetheland,
 
You are 100% on point. Import buyers more often than not are totally focused on one or two cars and have little knowledge of non Toyota/Honda/Nissan options on the market. People talk about domestic loyalists, but I want to know where I can find all these people. I cant tell you the last time I met someone who was wed to buying domestic only brands. This is 2007, not 1977. On the contrary, I can find lots of people that will only buy one or two import brands- usually Honda or Toyota.

"I cant tell you the last time I met someone who was wed to buying domestic only brands."
 
Look in the mirror.

"You are saying that a person who has bought Buick since the 50s (wouldnt that person be will over 70 now?) is going to give Buick good ratings no matter what as if a long time owner cant tell when a car has been in the shop too many times and thats ridiculous."
 
That is not what I am saying. Again with the "straw man" approach to debating (pathetic). These ratings are more than just "how many times has it been in the shop," but rather all matter of "quality" issues.
 
And yes, I do believe that the typical Buick buyer over the age of 60 is not aware of the quality of trim and interiors available on the Lexus ES350 or similar. They don't care. They want their Buick and that is fine.
 
Rarely these days are cars so unreliable that they are constantly in the shop, therefore the devil is in the details and the evaluation of the different nuances of the car. I don't think Lincoln is unreliable (especially within 90 days), but the evaluation of the little creaks in the dash or the gaps in the plastic are not on the radar screen of the typical Buick and Lincoln owner like they would be for customers that are not "brand loyal."
 
No need to get so hot about so simple and undeniable a point.

90 days was plenty long enough to find our 06 GTi was trouble. And though the vast majority of the 20-odd cars we've bought since 198~ were trouble-free, the ones that weren't let us know early.

brett,
 
"Look in the mirror."
 
Wrong as usual, my first car was a used legacy which was built in Japan. I've only owned two cars. You just cant keep your foot out of your mouth I see.
 
"Rarely these days are cars so unreliable that they are constantly in the shop, therefore the devil is in the details and the evaluation of the different nuances of the car. I don't think Lincoln is unreliable (especially within 90 days), but the evaluation of the little creaks in the dash or the gaps in the plastic are not on the radar screen of the typical Buick and Lincoln owner like they would be for customers that are not "brand loyal." "
 
a) I was talking to Karl so I'm not sure why you are responding
b) Buicks have pretty high standards of fit and finish, inside and out. This is not new and thus your assertion that Buick owners are too dumb to realize their cars arent put together as well as competing cars is bogus. No surprise there. Have you driven any recent Buicks with squeaks, rattles and poor interior fit? I had a 2007 Lacrosse rental and it was solid as a rock and well assembled. If you are going to make these statements, give us some context for where you get these off the wall ideas.
 
"That is not what I am saying. Again with the "straw man" approach to debating (pathetic). "
 
Dont know much about straw men, but I do know its pathetic that you are getting defensive about statements directed at someone else. Why are you telling me what you didnt say when I was talking to Karl in the first place? I never said you said ANY of that stuff.

1487
 
"Have you driven any recent Buicks with squeaks, rattles and poor interior fit?"
 
As I have already mentioned, my Grandmother had a late model LeSabre (the last year). Additionally, I have driven LaCrosse last year for three weeks in Corpus Christi, Texas during an extented business trip. Additionally, I have driven a Lucerne in Lubbock, Texas for two and a half weeks for an extended business trip. Both cars exhibited the traits that are typical of domestic interiors. Sweaks, small rattles, rubbing panels over uneven pavement. Definately not up to par with the Toyota Avalon, Lexus, VW, Acura TL, Accord, BMW, ....
 
My point is not that the owners are DUMB. My point is that they don't care. They are not aware of the competition.
 
That comes to my last point about the "straw man." I forget, that your level of sophistication is limited (and hostile) therefore, I will SPELL out for you what I have already explained to you several times.
 
Straw Man is a debate technique (rather pathetic one) where one side tries to paint the other side for them and then proceeds to debate the opposite points. Note that the arguement is not the exact point of the opposition, but rather a "false" point that is then debated.
 
Your posts are the classic example of this. You don't respond to the point presented, you recharacterize it and then proceed to make fun of it. No one said Buick or Lincoln owners were DUMB. No one said they could not tell if their cars were in the shop too often. But reading your posts no one would know the truth of what the rest of us had said.

" Both cars exhibited the traits that are typical of domestic interiors. Sweaks, small rattles, rubbing panels over uneven pavement. "
 
dont want to call you a liar but.............
 
Lets just say that your experiences dont line up with mine or most of the journalists who have reviewed these cars. Its interesting that every review of modern Buicks notes how quiet the cars are and ONLY you just happend to drive three Buicks with squeaks, rattles, rubbing panels etc. Sounds to me like you heard what you planned on hearing before you even got in the car. Typical of domestic cars? That is rich, even for you. Are you honestly saying that most 2007 domestic cars come from the factory with squeaks and rattles?
 
"My point is not that the owners are DUMB. My point is that they don't care. They are not aware of the competition. "
 
Most Lucerne/Lacrosses I see are driven by people 40-60 approximately. How many people in that age range do you think are unaware that Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, Lexus', etc. are sold in the US market? I would estimate about 5% of these people are so out of touch that they think you cant buy an import branded car in 2007. Your point is totally illogical but typical of a close minded, self righteous import fan. How arrogant is is=t for one to say the ONLY reason a person would buy a Buick is that they are unaware that "superior" cars are for sale at their local Toyota/Honda dealer?
 
" forget, that your level of sophistication is limited (and hostile) therefore, I will SPELL out for you what I have already explained to you several times. "
 
Even you arent ignorant enough to believe my level of sophistication is limited. You have corresponded with me enough to know I am quite knowledgable about the subject at hand.
 
"Note that the arguement is not the exact point of the opposition, but rather a "false" point that is then debated. "
 
No need to employ such tactics when your core arguments are flawed . I chose not to quote you verbatim just to make things more interesting to read. I know what you said and I get your points. Your overall point is far more significant that the specific words you use. I capture the spirit and intent of your poorly thought out "arguments" each and every time. You can call Buick owners "uneducated", "ignorant", "closed minded", "patriotic", "blindly loyal" or whatever PC term you want but your point is still the same and its still incorrect. Since you see no value in Buicks you are making excuses to explain why Buick usually does well in quality surveys and at the end of the day everything you have said can be summed up as lame, unproven excuses. This is the typical mindset of 100% biased import fanbiys like yourself. You quote CR and C&D like its Gospel when they bash domestics and you make excuses for any award or survey result that paints ANY domestic brand in a flattering light. You are probably one of the people who said that MT Car of the Year is paid for my manufacturers when a domestic wins, but count it as a legit accolade when an import wins. Did I spell that out clearly enough for you? I tried to leave the straw man out of this post as much as possible.
 
"But reading your posts no one would know the truth of what the rest of us had said."
 
who is the rest of us? I only had an issue with ONE person's comments. I was ONLY responding to Karl's comments about Buick owners being blindly loyal. You unsurprisingly jumped in to his defense and went on the attack. Wasnt talking to you and I did not disagree with any of the other posters in this forum. You need to understand that I dont need to twist words around when your own words clearly convey your bias and gap filled logic.

I am not a blind import fan. If you read what was said, rather than your stupid characterization of what was said you would know that.
 
However, the ratings that we are discussing are not on par with even the most lenient consumer reports, or general perception from my MANY years of driving an purchasing cars. [Many more than your 2 cars] Wow!, lots of experience there!
 
I have never said you don't know about cars, but you are an UNABASHED GM Defender, with nary a criticism of them to be had. So please spare me any excuses for this.
 
You are unsophisticated in your "logic" and "arguments", that is my point. You range all over the map with your totally made up statistics and then proclaim them to be fact. Buick's customer base is much older than 40-60. In fact years ago the study indicated that their typical buyer was well into their sixties. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE MY UNCLE SOLD THEM FOR YEARS, as a General Sales Manager in Kansas City. And was privy to their internal memorandum and marketing studies.
 
Yes Buick is better, but I still heard what I heard. And the typical Buick customer is not one who cares. They are aware of Lexus, but know that they can get what they have always got with Buick, and they know that they will be dependable. Dependable, but not better. BOTTOMLINE.

"Lets just say that your experiences dont line up with mine or most of the journalists who have reviewed these cars. Its interesting that every review of modern Buicks notes how quiet the cars are and ONLY you just happend to drive three Buicks with squeaks, rattles, rubbing panels etc. Sounds to me like you heard what you planned on hearing before you even got in the car."
 
Ummm...I've had this experience in new Buicks, and so has everyone else on the editorial staff. I specifically remember driving the "all-new" LaCross a few years ago and finding that the headliner near the rear window seemed loose (as an aside, the material used for the headliner was pretty cheap, too). So I lightly tugged on the edge of the headliner and -- viola! -- it came loose and the back half of the headliner dropped down on my head! My reaction was both shock at how easily it came apart and concern that I'd just damaged (albeit far too easily) the press car. Then I realized that the headliner came down so easily because it was held on by a magnet! Yes, instead of a comprehensive adhesive to secure the headliner as a whole, Buick used a few strategically placed magnets to get the job done. At least I was able to "fix it" rather quickly.
 
Oh, and before someone (cough - 1487 - cough) starts in with a lame, "Oh, well, that's just great design! See how easy it is to disassemble the headliner for maintenance purpopses and still be able to re-use it?? Brilliant!!" No, this is just blatant cost cutting, plain and simple. The headliner matierial was cheap, the adhesive system was cheap, and, most importantly, it was ineffective at conveying a sense of luxury (something I assume the brand is still supposed to represent). The whole reason this "adhesive" system came to light in the first place was because the headliner was sagging and creaking.
 
This incident happened a few years ago, and I'd like to assume Buick is moving away from such ugly cost cutting, but it was an "all-new" model at the time, so it didn't inspire much confidence that Buick was on track to "rebuild their brand" (something they've been saying for years...). And yet, I'm betting most LaCross buyers either didn't notice or didn't care enough about this particular "feature" to record it on their J.D. Power initial quality surveys, which is the original point of this post.

"Oh, and before someone (cough - 1487 - cough) starts in with a lame, "Oh, well, that's just great design! See how easy it is to disassemble the headliner for maintenance purpopses and still be able to re-use it?? Brilliant!!" No, this is just blatant cost cutting, plain and simple. "
 
Never tried to pull down the headliner in my rental Lacrosse. Maybe it would come off that easily, but thats not something I usually check when driving a car. Or owning a car for that matter. BTW, we were specifcailly talking about sqeaks, rattles, etc. The rental I had was tight and in MOST reviews (edmunds excluded obviously) I have seen little about the Lucerne and Lacrosse being full of rattles and loose trim parts. I wouldnt say the Edmunds experience was representative of Buick reviews as a whole. You have driven the Lucerne since your initial Lacrosse experience. Was the headliner falling off? Any other trim pieces? I think thay might give you a clue as to whether or not your test car was an anomaly or standard practice for Buicks. I have never seen this in the Lacrosse's I've sat in so I would assume your car wasnt the norm. Have you been in the Enclave? Was it as cheap as the Lacrosse you test drove?
 
I typically dont consider woven headliners to be cheap since that is what is used on VW/Audi products and most other nice cars. LAst time I checked the Lacrosse had that type of headliner. Naturally, it was "cheap" in the lacrosse but not in cars by other manufacturers. If I'm not mistaken the Camry and GS still use the furry type of headliners that GM used to be criticized for. That wouldnt be cheap would it?
 
Of course not

I had a brand-new Aura for a few days that had a small rattle from the seat track on the passenger side, a door to dash panel gap that was extremely uneven driver side vs passenger side, and obviously mismatched plastics on the audio and climate panels compared to each other and the surrounding trim.
  
That's an anecdotal example like many of the opinions on these forums (partly, since poorly matched plastics is not a one-off issue, like Karl's headliner example). My sister's friend's grandmother's niece's brother-in-law had problems with his Camry, so that means the quality on the other gazillion out there must also be crap. My aunt's Suburban keeps suffering powertrain problems, well I guess that means all Suburbans have powertrain problems!
 
My brand-new Mazda6 from a few years ago had a major transmission problem and ended up having it replaced after only 1k miles. I spent some time researching the problem and tapped an inside connection at Mazda and guess what... couldn't find a single shred of evidence that it wasn't just a random factory defect that my car happened to have. So I got over it and continued on my merry way, new gearbox and all. A Mazda rep even supervised the repair at the dealer and personally apologized to me for the problem.
  
So come on people, enough with the anecdotes - they don't really mean much other than saying 1 in 30,000 cars isn't perfect. People "hear things" or "see things" here and there and everywhere, do your limited personal experiences really extrapolate to a statistical significance? Will most consumers see these problems? Use data or some sort of sources to back up your assertions... thank you brett, access to Buick marketing data does actually count.

"Never tried to pull down the headliner in my rental Lacrosse. Maybe it would come off that easily, but thats not something I usually check when driving a car. Or owning a car for that matter. BTW, we were specifcailly talking about sqeaks, rattles, etc."
 
Exactly, the SQUEAK from the headliner, along with the apperance of a looseness/droopiness, caused me to investigate that aspect of our test car, and in the process the rear part of the headliner fell down.
 
"I think thay might give you a clue as to whether or not your test car was an anomaly or standard practice for Buicks."
 
Perhaps the sqeak was an anomaly, but the design of the headliner "adhesive" certainly wasn't. It was the DESIGN, it used a couple magnets instead of a comprehensive glue. That design is CHEAP, and something you'd never see on a Lexus (a brand Buick wants to claim as a competitor). Ergo, regardless of squeaks that do or don't materialize on a specific car the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION and thus the QUALITY of the Buick was not up to Lexus standards. Thus I would rate it as inferior to the Lexus, at least in that aspect (interior design/build quality). Would the Lexus headliner have the same DESIGN weakness? Don't know, never investigated the headliner on an ES 350 that closely because it never squeaked and thus never got me poking around at its adhesive design in the first place (though, as part of my job I do give headliners, and everything else inside a cabin, a general inspection, and I've never found any magnets in a Lexus headliner).
 
And, once again -- to make my point for the third time, I doubt this issue would appear on a J.D. Power survey because most Buick buyers probably wouldn't notice the squeak and almost definitely wouldn't investigate it as much as I did even if they detected it. If the car didn't leave the owner stranded at the side of the road in the first 90 days it would get overall good scores (which most cars do these days on the IQS). Does that make it as good as the competitive Lexus that also scores well on IQS? Not in my opinion.

KB:
 
I dont doubt your test car had this problem. MMy question is this: have you witnesses such issues in any other Lacrosse or other Buick for that matter. The basis of your entire argument is that since you found this issue in a test car three years ago that proves that Buicks are poorly made but this fact goes unnoticed by Buick's blindly loyal buyers who are totally unaware that superior cars exist.
 
Assuming the headliner was "cheap" (not that I know how one determines that) I would like to know if you found the rest of the car as a whole to be equally poorly designed and constructed. BTW, I too would rate the Lacrosse inferior to a Lexus and that is unsurprising when you consider the Lacrosse starts a solid $8K less than an ES350. I would hope Lexus would offer me something superior for that much dough. Thats just me though. If the two cars were equal Lexus would be grossly overcharging people in my opinion. Most $32k cars are better than $24k cars last time I checked.
 
I will say that I drove my rental Lacrosse about 400-500 miles over the couse of 4 days and nothing squeaked and the headliner never sagged, made a noise, collapsed or did anything but stay where it was supposed to. Overall I found the car to be very quiet. Just so you know my hearing and sight are top notch. I have also yet to read ANY other reviews of the Lacrosse (or other Buicks) that echo your complaint. When I add all that up I am inclined to believe that your test car was a bad one, in fact it could have been a pre-production car. The Lacrosse has quite a few flaws, but nothing I have read was critical of its build quality or structural integrity. Feel free to dismiss that (I'm sure you will) but at this point I dont know that Edmunds' test car is enough for us to say that Buicks are generally poorly engineered and assembled. Its just so interesting to me that Edmunds has always been the one publication that manages to get cars (always domestic) where parts just fall of with little provocation. This has been a common theme with Edmunds since I have been visiting, although things have died down lately. There was a time when every GM vehicle tested here lost a handle, shift boot, plastic trim piece, switch, grab handle, etc. during its time with Edmunds staff.
 
bimmerjay,
 
"So come on people, enough with the anecdotes - they don't really mean much other than saying 1 in 30,000 cars isn't perfect. People "hear things" or "see things" here and there and everywhere, do your limited personal experiences really extrapolate to a statistical significance?"
 
I agree. Generalizations are used when convenient. If you dont like brand A than you mentione a particular bad experience and pretend that is proof that all cars by brand A stink. I have a relative with a problematic Camry but I'm pretty sure if I tried to argue that all Camrys suck and Toyota's overall quality is lacking based on this ONE car people here would shout me down.

"I am not a blind import fan"
 
Hmmm, wonder why I didnt pick up on that?
 
"However, the ratings that we are discussing are not on par with even the most lenient consumer reports, or general perception from my MANY years of driving an purchasing cars. [Many more than your 2 cars] Wow!, lots of experience there! "
 
I get lots of information from lots of people. I never said I only know about two cars, just said I've only owned two. I do have friends, family, coworkers, etc. As for cars I've driven, that number is probably well over 50. Yes, my experience is pretty limited.
 
"I have never said you don't know about cars, but you are an UNABASHED GM Defender, with nary a criticism of them to be had. So please spare me any excuses for this. "
 
There is no proof of that but its a typical cop out response for someone is on the losing end of these debates. Anyone who reads about this industry can easily name a dozen GM deficiencies, me included. Just to make you happy, here is a list of GM products I don't care for: Canyon/Colorado, Aveo, 2004 Malibu, anything Hummer, GMT360 SUVs and Ion. Here is my list of decent GM models that are nice, but probably not worth buying: Cobalt/G5, Solstice/Sky, Equinox (until it gets 263hp), Lacrosse and 9-5. Yup, unabashed GM fan- that's me alright. I just LOVE every vehicle they make. Maybe next time I'll provide you with my list of favorite import models.
 
"ou are unsophisticated in your "logic" and "arguments", that is my point."
 
Please note, any point you disagree with isnt necessarily unsophisticated. They are plenty sophisticated, but you dont like what you're reading. Learn the difference.
 
"Dependable, but not better. "
 
And that statement is based on what? Your import fanboy stance that its inconceivable that anything from a Detroit automaker could ever beat a Lexus at anything? Sorry, but that isnt proof in my book. What you are saying is that Buick cant be better because its Buick and Lexus is perfect, surveys be damned. Hell, if we can all discredit any results we dont like by insulting the particpants I will start telling people that Toyota only gets good CR ratings because Toyota owners are uncapable of admitting when their cars have problems.
 
I did read the average age of Buick owners several years back was mid 60s. I am willing to bet the Lucerne and Enclave can bring that down, if its not down already. BTW, 60 aint what it used to be. Many 60 year olds can still see, hear, understand surveys, research imports online, etc. 60 is the new 50 last time I checked. If you read what I stated (try it sometime) you will see that I said in my experience most drivers of the current Buicks are in the 40-60 range. The drivers of the lesabres and Park Aves are a little bit older though. Of course that excludes all the young people that are buying used Buicks and putting rims on them. The Lesabre and Park Ave are pretty popular used cars around here. Lets see how many 65 year old geezers purchase enclaves. As I said, if Buicks scores stay high once the Enclave is a major part of their sales mix I think we can test you and Karl's theory that old Buick owners dont care about quality or other brands.

"Please note, any point you disagree with isnt necessarily unsophisticated. They are plenty sophisticated, but you dont like what you're reading. Learn the difference."
 
The unsophisticated aspect of your arguement is your techinque. You still don't get it. The strawman approach. (Which you still don't understand) I know what you are talking about. You are arguing that Buick owners are no different from other owners. And that Buicks have no glaring build quality issues as evidenced by the surveys.
 
Did I misstate anything there?
 
I don't agree. The survey is flawed because the data is scewed. You can debate the relative value of a sixty year olds senses. That is just ridiculous. I have no doubt they can see and hear. The issue is whether they CARE.
 
"There is no proof of that but its a typical cop out response for someone is on the losing end of these debates."
 
And if you don't consider yourself a GM defender I don't know how to respond to that. Everytime there is any topic on here to rant and rave about how GM is treated unfair. Like the rant you made on the 6 speed transmission when the blog wasn't even about that. Or the comments on the recall on Tundras and you blast about how GM is treated unfair, but Toyota gets away with murder. Congradulations that you can point to inferior models of GM. Swing a dead cat at a Chevy dealership, but you take every opportunity to defend them.
 
But keep misstating the arguments all day long. I personally am tired of your rants of foolishness on this particular point and will ignore any further "responses" that don't respond to anything.

"I don't agree. The survey is flawed because the data is scewed. You can debate the relative value of a sixty year olds senses. That is just ridiculous. I have no doubt they can see and hear. The issue is whether they CARE. "
 
Thats your opinion, nothing more and nothing less. In spite of everything you have typed we are still at square one. You believe that Buick owners dont care about quality because they will buy a Buick no matter what. There is no proof of that, but everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as they understand its just an opinion. Its pointless to speculate on the loyalty of a specific set of buyers because there is no way to measure that. How do we know which brands have those types of buyers and which do not? Should we start selectively disregarding the rankings of whichever brands we chose based on our "feeling" about their owners?
 
BTW, are you saying the data is screwed simply because you dont like the results? Now that's a stretch. Not surprising though because I find most import lovers dont like JD Power results because they dont mirror CR results closely enough. I rarely ever hear someone like you challenge the results of CR's reliability surveys when they show Japanese cars doing great and American cars lagging far behind year after year. Coincidence? I dont know.
 
"And if you don't consider yourself a GM defender I don't know how to respond to that. Everytime there is any topic on here to rant and rave about how GM is treated unfair. Like the rant you made on the 6 speed transmission when the blog wasn't even about that. Or the comments on the recall on Tundras and you blast about how GM is treated unfair, but Toyota gets away with murder. Congradulations that you can point to inferior models of GM. Swing a dead cat at a Chevy dealership, but you take every opportunity to defend them. "
 
For peace of mind I suggest you learn the difference between facts and opinions. Its that simple. You dont like the fact that I dispute your opinions that are passed off as verifiable facts. YOu can call than "GM defending" or whatever you want to, it just so happens that many of your opinions happen to involve trashing GM (and anything else domestic) and thus you intepret my responses as unreasonable. I dont deny any facts regarding domestic vehicles, facts such as lower resale value, lower snob appeal at the country club, lack of 60mpg hybrid cars, etc. Those facts are undisputable. Almost everything else can be challenged and I will do so if I see fit. When you start telling me about all GM cars being poorly built and having hard plastics and other such things while blatantly ignoring the facts you will probably get a response.

Karl, Brett,
why do you waste your time with the Philly silly?
Rental cars are not a good way to "test" a car. Unless he rents it.
Track performance doesn't translate to street. Unless it a Cobalt.
Opinions aren't facts. Unless it's his opinion.
Your thoughts, opinions etc are hilarious. Unless he agrees.
GM is great, they did not;
make the Vega
make the Cadillac 4-6-8
make the Olds diesel
make the Cimmaron
make the Monza (can't change the spark plugs unless you drop the engine)
make the fireball Fiero
 
Karl you should just hire him as your ghost writer, or at least use him as a source for all things automotive. After all he has owned 2 (two) cars.

I guess using the LaCrosse's headliner as an example gave the impression it was the only problem I found on that car, and that car was the only Buick I've ever driven with a problem.
 
To be clear, as a pattern recent Buick test vehicles (Rendezvous, LaCrosse, Lucerne, Rainier) have more often than not shown sub par material quality and/or build quality. I can't specifically remember squeaks existing, or not existing, in each one (too long ago).
 
Sorry all the other magazines aren't seeing this (maybe they shouldn't be filling out J.D. Power surveys either...).
 
Crackin' me up mnorm!

"BTW, are you saying the data is screwed simply because you dont like the results? Now that's a stretch. Not surprising though because I find most import lovers dont like JD Power results because they dont mirror CR results closely enough. I rarely ever hear someone like you challenge the results of CR's reliability surveys when they show Japanese cars doing great and American cars lagging far behind year after year. Coincidence? I dont know."
 
Notice that I NEVER said what you are saying, but you argue the point anyway. STRAWMAN. Pathetic.
 
Ok, now I am officially done.

Ford's long term quality shows strong gains too!
 
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/AUTO01/706210384/1148