FCA brands claim five of the 10-worst rankings in the dependability study
J.D. Power Dependability Study If you’ve been following market research firm J.D. Power’s careful parsing of automobile quality through its annual dependability surveys, you probably know that automakers have been grappling with slipping quality scores in recent years, attributed to the challenges of delivering flawless driver technology, including the infotainment and navigation gear consumers crave. At the same time, J.D. Power has documented a troubling uptick in reports of mechanical faults, such as clunky transmissions, failing turbos and oil-burning engines. Car trouble is about as welcome as a root canal, but the industry may have turned the corner. The 2018 J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) reveals overall vehicle dependability has improved for the first time since 2013 – although that doesn’t mean there still aren’t some problem cases out there. ▲
Overall dependability has improved The study asked the original buyers of 2015-model-year cars and trucks how their vehicles held up after three years. J.D. Power expresses dependability as the number of problems reported per 100 vehicles (PP100). With the industry average of 142 problems per 100 vehicles this year being lower – hence better – than the 156 PP100 average last year, the 9% improvement is a positive outcome. It’s especially good news for consumers. Not only do vehicle owners spend less time drinking service centre coffee, but J.D. Power finds that better long-term quality often correlates with higher vehicle residual values – and that can mean more money in drivers’ pockets when it comes time to trade in old models. Still, there are more manufacturers ranked below the industry average score than above it. Let’s count down the 10 least dependable brands in 2018, according to J.D. Power, to the ratings basement. ▲
10th-Worst: Volvo – 162 PP100 When financial setbacks during the Great Recession compelled Ford to sell the automobile division of Volvo to Chinese automaker Geely in 2010, the result was an excruciating wait for new products to come to market. Volvo dealers were left hawking aging models that had been lightly refreshed. For 2015 the automaker readied a pair of turbocharged four-cylinder engines to better match its competitors’ mean and green powerplants. The “Drive-E” 2.4-L turbo four produced 240 hp in base form, and a unique turbocharged and supercharged version generated 302 horses. Unfortunately, some owners criticized Volvo’s new-generation engines for being beset by faulty sensors, turbos and even pistons. A few have had entire engines replaced. Oil consumption may be an early sign of things turning sour. It’s worth noting that intrusive new technology such as the Drive-E’s fuel-saving auto stop-start system that cannot be permanently disabled can generate “problem” scores that don’t actually reflect a dependability issue. ▲
9th-Worst: Dodge – 166 PP100 More than a decade ago Chrysler bet the farm on the Chrysler 300 rear-drive chassis, partially developed by former partner Mercedes-Benz, which also underpins the popular Dodge Challenger and Charger models. For the most part, these cars – all assembled in Canada – have met owners’ expectations. However, a lot of Dodge models share components that, when they’re found to be flawed, infect the entire lineup with mechanical issues. The Pentastar 3.6-L V6 can reportedly develop a cracked cylinder head. The automaker’s totally integrated power module (TIPM) has introduced all kinds of drivability issues in numerous models, including the Grand Caravan, Durango and long-in-the-tooth Journey. Spontaneous stalling, sometimes at highway speeds, has unnerved owners. By 2015 the TIPM troubles had subsided and Dodge rose in the VDS rankings, albeit still in the bottom 10. The Dart compact used a dual-clutch automatic that is prone to failure, while its Fiat-supplied engines can exhibit oil consumption and other wear issues at an early age. ▲
8th-Worst (Tie): Ram Truck – 167 PP100 Fiat Chrysler’s truck division, rebranded to embrace the longhorn in 2011, earned some hard-fought market share against the Ford and General Motors stalwarts. Engines were key to the Ram 1500 pickup’s appeal: the 395-hp 5.7-L Hemi V-8 is a nostalgic draw, while the Cummins 6.7-L inline six-cylinder turbodiesel enjoys a cult-like following. Still, reliability issues have dogged the brand. The ZF eight-speed transmission in the Ram 1500 can exhibit abrupt and hard shifting, and the rotary gear selector may not always engage in Park, presenting a rollaway hazard that has been reported by a number of owners. The Hemi V-8 has been known to snap rocker arms and consume oil. The “EcoDiesel” V-6 engine supplied by Fiat’s VM Motori division does not appear to hold up nearly as well as the Cummins, and owners report ongoing issues with the diesel’s emissions system. TIPM issues have presented battery and electrical system failures. ▲
8th-Worst (Tie): Subaru – 167 PP100 Japanese brands haven’t always been the faultless manufacturers your neighbour makes them out to be. And if its relatively low ranking is any indication, Subaru has made some missteps. The 2015 model year marked the launch of the redesigned Legacy sedan and, more importantly, the Outback – Subaru’s segment-defining crossover. Unfortunately, the automaker didn’t quite get it right. The internet is filled with complaints about the car’s fragile windshield that can crack for seemingly no reason; some owners have replaced their glass twice in a single year. Lots of Subie owners have been grappling with starting issues and dead batteries. Because Subaru uses the same drivetrain in several models, problems with the common 2.5-L flat-four engine appear elsewhere. Mysterious stalling or acceleration lag is reported in several models. The vaunted Impreza WRX performance sedan is plagued by flimsy manual transmission clutch plates, flywheels and throwout bearings that wear out at alarmingly low mileage. ▲
6th-Worst: Mitsubishi Mitsubishi is a massive Japanese conglomerate that’s into banking and shipbuilding, but its automobile division has to sink or swim on its own merits. Backed by five-year comprehensive and 10-year powertrain warranties, Mitsubishi vehicles are generally well made, but the fledgling brand is being drowned out by aggressive rivals in an extremely competitive marketplace. Its meagre product line is aging rapidly and 2015 brought nothing new to the showroom beyond a few styling and equipment updates. Mitsu owners haven’t been particularly vocal about mechanical issues online, although the diminutive Mirage hatchback has been singled out for its rapidly-wearing brakes. Being a wear item, brake repairs are rarely covered by the warranty. The Outlander crossover may exhibit some electronic snafus related to the forward collision mitigation system and other high-tech driving aids. Mitsubishi’s brand equity rose ever so slightly, buoyed by a 5% improvement in its PP100 score. ▲
5th-Worst: Cadillac – 186 PP100 Having successfully shed its century-old image as a purveyor of land yachts for octogenarians, Cadillac is now toiling to keep up in the escalating technology race with the prestigious European automakers. Here’s an example where a poorly executed driver interface can sink satisfaction ratings for an entire brand, not unlike what happened to Ford when it introduced its Microsoft-sourced SYNC system. For Cadillac it’s the CUE (Cadillac User Experience) system. CUE uses an 8-inch touchscreen with haptic feedback that supports the multi-touch, sliding and pinch-zoom gestures familiar to iPad users. CUE has been roundly criticized by owners for its sometimes slow response to touch and voice commands, and other malfunctions that often require rebooting. One exhausted owner online declared an intense dislike of “sliding things to turn the volume up or turn the A/C on.” Cadillac seems to have forgotten that older drivers still gravitate to the brand (despite its efforts to appeal to younger buyers) and they like their radio knobs. ▲
4th-Worst: Jeep – 188 PP100 Fiat Chrysler’s celebrated 75-year-old brand continues to sell extremely well, with the iconic Wrangler enjoying unyielding popularity evidenced by its excellent resale value. And that’s despite ongoing faults such as faulty transmissions, leaky transfer cases, poor electrics and the Jeep “death wobble” exhibited by worn suspension components. More disconcerting are the problems found in the more contemporary unibody Jeep platforms, including the redesigned Cherokee and the all-new Renegade for 2015. Built on Fiat’s modular CUS Wide platform, the Cherokee has generated a lot of complaints about its ZF nine-speed automatic transmission. Owners have reported sudden lunges, a lack of kickdown at speed, front-axle vibration in low gears, as well as complete transmission failure. The made-in-Italy Renegade uses the same irksome ZF automatic transmission with – surprise – the same results. It’s also plagued by electrical faults, squealing brakes, bad door locks and some oil consumption. Not a great debut for a new nameplate. ▲
3rd-Worst: Fiat – 192 PP100 Last year Fiat scored a disastrous 298 PP100 – that’s an average three problems per vehicle reported in the J.D. Power survey. Fiat was truly occupying the basement of the J.D. Power’s Dependability Study. We chalked it up to the introduction of the 500L, Fiat’s lifesize five-door hatchback with room for five occupants. It uses some familiar components, including a 160-hp, 1.4-L turbocharged four-cylinder and two transmissions: a six-speed manual and a six-speed dual-clutch automatic. The latter gearbox was plagued by issues, including burned-out clutches, locking gears and outright failure. Fiat wisely replaced the dual-clutch autobox with a conventional six-speed automatic sourced from Aisin (Toyota’s supplier) on most 2015 models. The change helped to lift Fiat out of the rankings sub-basement. Still, the manual transmission is universally despised for its fast-wearing friction material and pressure plates. Electrical faults are common in Fiat models, and the turbocharged engine is fond of oil. ▲
2nd-Worst – Land Rover As the ward of India’s Tata Motors, Land Rover has enjoyed healthy sales growth with its handsome designs and newfound attention to detail. The work had seemingly paid off, with the brand moving up 20 PP100 in the J.D. Power rankings last year, only to slip 26 PP100 in the latest survey. Land Rovers continue to exhibit reliability setbacks early in the ownership experience. Electronics can present numerous problems ranging from failed instrument displays to malfunctioning cameras. Owners reported lots of Check Engine lights to decode and software upgrades to perform. The heavy trucks consume brakes and tires rapidly, and engines can seep oil. The 240-hp 2.0-L turbocharged four-cylinder powering the Evoque and the Discovery Sport has not been very durable, and the ZF nine-speed transmission has proven to be the same troublesome automatic found in the Jeep Renegade and other models. Service is expensive and parts can take weeks to arrive from England. Fashionable Land Rover continues to be dogged by less than flattering assessments by its long-suffering patrons. ▲
The Worst: Chrysler – 211 PP100 Fiat Chrysler’s flagship brand tumbled from just below last year’s industry average of 156 PP100 to the very bottom of the brand rankings this year, an ignoble decline that could be attributed to just one model: the Chrysler 200. Refashioned into a swoopy sedan for 2015, the 200 was compromised by a platform derived from Europe’s Alfa Romeo Giulietta – and therein lies the problem. With rear seating that’s cramped and made worse by poor entry and egress, not to mention the small trunk, the 200 did not always make friends easily. Worse than that, it’s plagued by mysteriously stalling engines and a nine-speed ZF transmission that shifts harshly and is known to fail altogether. Not surprisingly, depreciation has fallen off a cliff. The 200 – and closely related Dodge Dart – proved so bad, Fiat Chrysler boss Sergio Marchionne euthanized the pair in late 2016. He confessed that the two cars were the least financially rewarding ventures in FCA’s short history – no doubt due to the deluge of warranty claims. ▲
Keyword: J.D. Power study reveals 10 least-reliable auto brands