The results of the J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey for 2007 were published some time ago. I just saw a few of the marques ranked -- usually the best ones. I just came across the entire list, so I thought I would share that with you. It does have some surprises and some results that just confirm what I have suspected for a long time. There were some manufacturers with big improvements and some that fell significantly. The study shows what owners think of their vehicles during the first 90 days of ownership.

I've stated it before that I have a problem with the Initial Quality Survey. That problem is that I think initial quality should only be things that are actually found wrong with the car. I mean things that can be fixed. J.D. Power, on the other hand, includes things that you think could be improved -- like not enough rear seat leg room. I would think you should have found that as a problem in the showroom and if it was significant, bought a different car. A problem, to me, is something like when the sunroof fails to open (or worse, to close). This needs fixing at the dealer and can mean time without the car, or at least the inconvenience of taking it to the dealer. There should be a distinction, but J.D. Power doesn't make it.

So, what does the table look like? A caveat is that MINI, Isuzu, Bentley, Ferrari, and the like are not shown because of their small production numbers (actually that J.D. Power didn't get enough survey forms returned to have good statistics).

Brand	IQS 2007	Compared to 2006
Porsche	91	0
Lexus	94	-1
Lincoln	100	21
Honda	108	2
Mercedes-Benz	111	28
Jaguar	112	-3
Toyota	112	-6
Mercury	113	16
Infiniti	117	0
Ford	120	7
Scion	123	17
Hyundai	125	-23
Kia	125	11
Total Industry	125	-1
Buick	127	;7
Chevrolet	129	-5
Volvo	129	4
Acura	130	-10
GMC	131	-12
Nissan	132	-11
Saturn	132	-3
BMW	133	9
Pontiac	133	0
Saab	133	30
Subaru	133	13
Cadillac	135	-18
Audi	136	-6
Chrysler	151	-31
Suzuki	153	16
Mitsubishi	155	-20
Dodge	156	-24
Volkswagen	160	11
Jeep	161	-8
Hummer	162	9
Mazda	163	-13
Land Rover	170	34

One thing that the table shows very clearly is that Ford has improved significantly. All three domestic brands; Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln; show significant improvements -- and all of them are above the industry average. Last year Ford and Mercury scored worse than the industry average. Lincoln is even number three.

Significantly, both other domestic manufacturers scored worse than the industry average with the Chrysler marque slipping significantly. It is also interesting that both Honda and Acura fared worse than Lincoln, and even more interesting that Acura was below the average and significantly below Honda. Does that indicate that Hondas and Acuras are pretty much the same, but that Acura owners have higher expectations than Honda owners?

The top ranking Ford corporate models are the Ford Mustang, Mercury Milan, Lincoln MKZ, Lincoln Mark LT, and Mazda MX-5 Miata. Nine other Ford models, more than any other manufacturer, finished in the top three in their respective segments.

GM's results are mixed. Five of their seven brands fell from last years ranking. That isn't a good trend. Cadillac had the biggest fall, from seventh-best last year, to 11th-worst this year. Oops. Only Hummer of GM brands scored worse than Cadillac. And Cadillac is supposed to be the "standard of the world"? This doesn't seem to indicate that.

The three brands showing the biggest improvement were Land Rover, Saab, and Mercedes-Benz. It is almost funny to find that Land Rover had the biggest improvement, but is still at the bottom of the list. I guess they really have a long way to go. If Saab hadn't had a 30 point improvement, it would have been very close to the bottom. Still it is below the industry average. Mercedes-Benz, on the other hand, not only showed significant improvement, but placed number five. This was a "must do" for Mercedes because they had a reputation for horrible quality over the past several years and stated that they really needed to improve. It looks like they did, but a more significant indication will be if the quality holds up over time. Mercedes is very happy because they are in the position of having cars with huge complexity, so they have "lot of ways to fail". They had the highest quality car in the survey with just 72 points and that is their most complex car, the S-class.

J.D. Power does not list the numbers for each model in the survey, just summary rankings. They did quote the S-class number because it was the winner, but also significantly, the listed the ranking of the C-class -- a car that is currently being replaced. Normally a manufacturer doesn't make an effort to improve the quality of a car that is going to be replaced soon, but the C-class improved by 18 points over last year. One hopes that with the often normal "launch-itis" quality problems, the C-class will still remain where it is on the list.

One manufacturer with real problems this year is Chrysler. They did have serious "launch-itis" problems with their Dodge Nitro. It was dead last in its segment and that segment had some 23 other models in it. These days, one would think that a manufacturer would make a significant effort to make sure that new models were just right when introduced. The Americans have long had the reputation that they couldn't introduce a car that was right from the beginning -- unlike the Japanese.

And to cite an example of how to do it right, Honda did it with their new CR-V. It was the top model in its segment. That helped Honda to be number four in the whole list. J.D. Power has found that on average, 64% of all-new or redesigned models perform worse than the industry average in their respective categories. This year the significant exceptions were the CR-V, the S-class and the Lincoln MKX.

Ford, in a much-reported decision, pushed back the launch date of the Lincoln MKX and its platform-mate the Ford Edge, in the hopes of avoiding the kinds of troubles most other launch vehicles have suffered. This, of course, has included some significant problem-prone Fords, such as the Focus. The MKX finished second in its category and the Ford Edge fourth. That is a significant improvement for Ford.

Chrysler was quoted in response to the Initial Quality Survey as pointing out that they introduced ten new products during 2007, but that wasn't an excuse. They need to do better in the future. The exact quote is, "To launch this much fresh product in one year and still show degrees of improvement in certain vehicles is encouraging, but certainly we will need to continue to work hard to change perception of the consumers and to improve based on their needs." That sounds like weasel words to me. Why not just say that they need to make the product better, not try to change the minds of their customers?

GM had much the same to say, pointing out that they introduced 11 new products. But their spokesman says it differently, "When you look at the complexity of a launch, you have an all-new design that you're placing into a plant in which all of the employees need to be trained. There are new processes, new suppliers, new parts. So the newness of everything and having it all come together presents some challenges. It's something we recognize, and something we need to get better at." Yeah, they need to improve. They don't say they need to change the customer's perception. Who's right? I'd say GM.

The "other" two Germans, BMW and VW group, really need to do some work. How can a "premium" German marque defend itself against the competition when BMW places rather well below the industry average, and Audi and Volkswagen place considerably below that? Can they just ignore this survey? Maybe. But VW and Audi who really are fighting for market share these days, really shouldn't.

What about poor lowly Mitsubishi who is struggling for sales, but near the bottom of the list, plus having fallen some 20 points this year. Could that be attributed to introducing the new Lancer? Probably, but they need to do better if they want to succeed.

Then there is really lowly Mazda, just one from the very bottom of the list, and having lost 13 points this year. They seem to have really good product. So what's the problem? Do they fall apart in 90 days? I haven't heard that to be the case. Or are there just some things about the Mazda that don't meet customer expectations?