"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
newsXQxh.21189$w91.6159@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> OK, I found the actual survey on the Consumer Reports web site (requires a
> subscription).
>
> "To learn how Americans perceive automobile brands, the Consumer Reports
> National Research Center conducted a random, nationwide telephone survey
> from Nov. 30 to Dec. 3, 2006, of 907 adults whose household owns at least
> one vehicle. Respondents were asked to name the best vehicle in each
> category."
>
> Here are the results in the various categories:
>
> Design/Style
>
> Ford 10%
> Toyota 9%
> Chevrolet 8%
> Chrysler 8%
> Honda 7%
>
> This really shocked me. I would have ranked them Honda, Chrysler, Ford,
> Chevrolet, and Toyota wouldn't have made the top 10
>

Just because you think the new Camry is ugly, doesn't mean everybody else
does. The rest of the lineup has its adherents, too.

I'm pleased to see Ford get a good mark here, however, because I happen to
like the design of the Five Hundred and the Fusion. We won't get one,
though. I'm willing to forgive and forget but my wife is not; no Fords for
us.

> Performance
>
> Toyota 13%
> Ford 12%
> Chevrolet 10%
> Honda 10%
> GMC 6%
>
> Another shocker - I would have ranked them Chevrolet, Chrysler, Honda,
> Ford, and Toyota wouldn't have made the top 10
>

You should drive the V6 Camry some time. Maybe people are imporessed by
good performance AND good fuel economy. Or maybe car buyers are starting to
think of fuel economy as a performance number. In fact, I do.

> Quality
>
> Toyota 19%
> Honda 14%
> Ford 12%
> Chevrolet 8%
> GMC 5%
>
> This one was not surprising. at all. Although most surveys indicate there
> is almost no significant difference in actual quality, perception would
> favor Toyota.
>
> Safety
>
> Volvo 23%
> Toyota 13%
> Ford 10%
> Honda 8%
> Chevrolet 6%
>
> I am not surprised Volvo was tops, but it is shocking that Toyota was
> second. Toyotas do well in some specific tests, but the many Toyota have
> relatively poor IIHS Injury Loss Rating. As a company, they don't rank
> second in Injury Loss Ratings by a long shot.
>
> Technology/Innovation
>
> Toyota 18%
> Honda 9%
> Ford 8%
> Lexus 7%
> Chevrolet 6%
> Mercedes-Benz 6%
>
> I suppose this must be totally based on hybrid vehicles. Otherwise Toyota
> vehicles can hardly be considered technological leaders. Most of the
> Toyota fleet is composed of designs that have changed very little in a
> decade.
>

Utter bunk. The 2007 Camry and the 2006 Rav, for example, were new designs,
not warmed over models. The Rav was introduced in '96, lightly refreshed in
'98 or '99, all-new for '01, refreshed in '04 and all new in '06.

And, we bought our Sienna in part because of the VVT engine, available in no
other minivan at that time. It had incredible zoom-zoom and I was amazed to
find it was the smallest engine in a minivan (exc the Mazda, which was also
surprisingly lively but smaller and lighter). I believe every Toyota car
came with a VVT engine in '01 (the Camry and Rav certainly did). I'm not
sure you could get VVT in any GM product at that time, except maybe
Cadillac.

Ford could lay a strong claim to this, though, as they also offer a hybrid
and offer CVTs in non-hybrid cars, too.

> Value
>
> Toyota 17%
> Ford 13%
> Honda 13%
> Chevrolet 10%
> Hyundai 5%
>
> Hmm, not sure about this one. My experience is that most Toyotas are
> overpriced compared to the others on the list. It is interesting that Ford
> did relatively well in most categories, but is having a lot of problems
> (at least according to the media) selling cars despite offering good
> vehicles at better prices.
>

I think this is reasonable. With Toyota, you get a lot of car for the money
and then it doesn't depreciate much or cost you an arm and a leg to keep on
the road. Ford does well in this category because they're offering a
reasonable amount of car for very little money.

> Brand Loyalty
>
> Toyota 78%
> Honda 60%
> Ford 51%
> Chevrolet 50%
>

I can readily believe this. Ford and Chevy are kept afloat by people who
will simply never consider Asian cars (other recent survey by J.D.Power on
national branding). Toyota and Honda do well because they've done well by
their existing customers.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45c7f428$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
<snipped>
>> Technology/Innovation
>>
>> Toyota 18%
>> Honda 9%
>> Ford 8%
>> Lexus 7%
>> Chevrolet 6%
>> Mercedes-Benz 6%
>>
>> I suppose this must be totally based on hybrid vehicles. Otherwise Toyota
>> vehicles can hardly be considered technological leaders. Most of the
>> Toyota fleet is composed of designs that have changed very little in a
>> decade.
>>
>
> Utter bunk. The 2007 Camry and the 2006 Rav, for example, were new
> designs, not warmed over models. The Rav was introduced in '96, lightly
> refreshed in '98 or '99, all-new for '01, refreshed in '04 and all new in
> '06.
>
> And, we bought our Sienna in part because of the VVT engine, available in
> no other minivan at that time. It had incredible zoom-zoom and I was
> amazed to find it was the smallest engine in a minivan (exc the Mazda,
> which was also surprisingly lively but smaller and lighter). I believe
> every Toyota car came with a VVT engine in '01 (the Camry and Rav
> certainly did). I'm not sure you could get VVT in any GM product at that
> time, except maybe Cadillac.
>
> Ford could lay a strong claim to this, though, as they also offer a hybrid
> and offer CVTs in non-hybrid cars, too.

Ford's hybrid drive system is supplied by Aisin, which is part of Toyota's
keiretsu.


--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45c7f428$0$16329$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .

.....................................

>> Design/Style
>>
>> Ford 10%
>> Toyota 9%
>> Chevrolet 8%
>> Chrysler 8%
>> Honda 7%
>>
>> This really shocked me. I would have ranked them Honda, Chrysler,
>> Ford, Chevrolet, and Toyota wouldn't have made the top 10
>>
>
> Just because you think the new Camry is ugly, doesn't mean everybody
> else does. The rest of the lineup has its adherents, too.

I didn't say the Camry was ugly. Bland, yes. Slightly odd looking,
yes. Ugly, no. The old Echo was ugly. The outside of my SO's new RAV4
is hmmm... slightly odd, but not ugly. However, the interior is a
mess. It has the most illogical control layout of any vehicle I have
driven in a long time. I am sure I'd get used to it if I drove the
vehicle everyday, but as an occasional driver, I find the control
layout bizarre.

> I'm pleased to see Ford get a good mark here, however, because I
happen to
> like the design of the Five Hundred and the Fusion. We won't get
> one, though. I'm willing to forgive and forget but my wife is not;
> no Fords for us.

The 500 is continually beaten up for being bland, or looking like a
big Passat. I have a Fusion. I'd not claim the exterior it is
especially beautiful, but it looks OK. The interior is very well done.
My SO always comments on how nice the Fusion is, but then there is no
way she would buy one unless somebody changed the badges to say
Toyota.

>> Performance
>>
>> Toyota 13%
>> Ford 12%
>> Chevrolet 10%
>> Honda 10%
>> GMC 6%
>>
>> Another shocker - I would have ranked them Chevrolet, Chrysler,
>> Honda, Ford, and Toyota wouldn't have made the top 10
>>
>
> You should drive the V6 Camry some time. Maybe people are impressed
> by good performance AND good fuel economy. Or maybe car buyers are
> starting to think of fuel economy as a performance number. In fact,
> I do.

Consumer Reports didn't find the Camry V-6 to have particularly good
fuel economy.

2007 XLE 3.5L V-6 -
CU's overall mileage, mpg 23
CU's city/highway, mpg 16/32
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 29

Not bad, but nothing to get excited about either. And as I mentioned
in a different thread, there were numerous Consumer complaints about
the poor gas mileage of the 2007 4 cylinder Camry in the CR on-line
opinions forum.

In retrospect, the most surprising thing about this category is that
neither VW or BMW were in the top five.

......................

>> Technology/Innovation
>>
>> Toyota 18%
>> Honda 9%
>> Ford 8%
>> Lexus 7%
>> Chevrolet 6%
>> Mercedes-Benz 6%
>>
>> I suppose this must be totally based on hybrid vehicles. Otherwise
>> Toyota vehicles can hardly be considered technological leaders.
>> Most of the Toyota fleet is composed of designs that have changed
>> very little in a decade.
>>
>
> Utter bunk. The 2007 Camry and the 2006 Rav, for example, were new
> designs, not warmed over models. The Rav was introduced in '96,
> lightly refreshed in '98 or '99, all-new for '01, refreshed in '04
> and all new in '06.

If by all new, you mean they are building the RAV4 on the Camry
platform since 06, then I guess you could say the RAV4 is all new in
'06. I just don't think shuffling around the same bits under new
sheetmetal represents technological innovation. I give Toyota a lot of
credit for selling the best hybrids, but the rest of the line-up is
just reshuffling the same old parts. What makes the 2007 Camry all
new? Other than the sheet metal exactly what is "all new?" I guess I
can give them credit for finally using hydraulic lash adjuster on the
3.5L V-6. That's really taking a great leap forward, at least for
Toyota.

> And, we bought our Sienna in part because of the VVT engine,
> available in no other minivan at that time. It had incredible
> zoom-zoom and I was amazed to find it was the smallest engine in a
> minivan (exc the Mazda, which was also surprisingly lively but
> smaller and lighter). I believe every Toyota car came with a VVT
> engine in '01 (the Camry and Rav certainly did). I'm not sure you
> could get VVT in any GM product at that time, except maybe Cadillac.

What is incredible zoom-zoom? And why do you need it in a mini-van?
While it is true that the Sienna is one of the faster mini-vans to 60,
it did poorly in the CU handling test and was one of the smallest (and
lightest) mini-vans. It seems to me that when buying a mini-van
interior room would be more important than 0-60. And if it is for your
family, emergency handling would be more important than zoom-zoom. But
I suppose different folks have different wants and desires. In this
class, I'd rate the Odyssey as tops.

As for variable valve timing - It is nothing new. There were
aftermarket systems for Ford V-8s available in the 60's. Honda and
Nissan have been using this in production cars for at least 20 years.
Even Ford used it for some production engines as early as the late
1990's. Ford was the first pick-up truck manufacturer to use variable
valve timing in a production pick-ups.

> Ford could lay a strong claim to this, though, as they also offer a
> hybrid and offer CVTs in non-hybrid cars, too.

Even GM offered CVT - at least for a while, in Saturns. I had a Vue
with he CVT. Honda offered hybrid cars in the US before Toyota did.
Audi had hybrid nearly production ready demonstration vehicles
available before either Honda or Toyota. Audi sold a production hybrid
in Europe the same year Toyota introduced the Prius in Japan. You
never hear that though.

................................

>> Brand Loyalty
>>
>> Toyota 78%
>> Honda 60%
>> Ford 51%
>> Chevrolet 50%
>>
>
> I can readily believe this. Ford and Chevy are kept afloat by
> people who will simply never consider Asian cars (other recent
> survey by J.D.Power on national branding). Toyota and Honda do well
> because they've done well by their existing customers.

You could just as easily say that Toyota is kept afloat by people who
simply never consider domestic cars. I have several friends who won't
even consider anything but Toyotas. They haven't owned a domestic car
since the 70's (and some have never owned a domestic car). At least I
am willing to shop around. I have never had a significant problem with
the Fords I have owned in the last 35 years or my local Ford dealer.
Even the Nissan dealer has treated me very well. I haven't had a real
serious problem with a dealer since the early 80's (I had a Mazda
dealer lie to me about resolving a problem). The only truly bad cars
I've owned in the last 35 years were a Plymouth Reliant and a Toyota
Cressida. I hated the Mazda 626 I owned, but I can't really claim it
was a horrible car since my Sister drove it for many years after I
decided to get rid of it.

Ed

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:14:50 -0600, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:

>
>I'm pleased to see Ford get a good mark here, however, because I happen to
>like the design of the Five Hundred and the Fusion. We won't get one,
>though. I'm willing to forgive and forget but my wife is not; no Fords for
>us.

We see who the smart one in your family is <g>....

--

Scott in Florida