White File2009

8/4/2019 White File2009

1/197

2005 - 2009

The 2005-2009 White Paper on Korean Automobile Quality

/ Jin-Kook Kim

/ Kyong-Seok Lee

/ Young H. Kim

8/4/2019 White File2009

2/197

2005 - 2009

:

:

: November 15 2004 No. 22-2640

: 216-3 4/6

: 82-2-6004-7600 FAX: 82-2-543-5984www.mktinsight.co.krE-mail: [email protected]

ISBN-89-955940-0-4

20,000

()

.

The 2005-2009 White Paper on Korean Automobile Quality

Publisher : Jin-Kook Kim

Publishing body : Marketing Insight

Publishing registration : November 15 2004 No. 22-2640

Address : 4F/6F, HYAR Bldg., 216-3, Nonhyun-dong, Gangnam-gu, SeoulTelephone : 82-2-6004-7600 FAX: 82-2-543-5984www.mktinsight.co.krE-mail: [email protected]

ISBN-89-955940-0-4

Price 20,000

Copyright 2009 by Marketing Insight Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part is forbidden

without prior written permission of the author and is never permitted for commercial purposes.

8/4/2019 White File2009

3/197

Preface

() (www. mktinsight.

co. kr) 7

10

11

.

2003

,

.

2005-2009 5

.

.

,

A/S .

.

,

The White Paper on Korean Automobile

Quality is a summary of quality related

findings from The Syndicated Automotive

Research which is being conducted by

the one and only automotive research

firm in Korea, Marketing Insight, Inc.(www. mktinsight. co. kr), in every July

with 100k samples, and published in every

November. From the first release in 2003,

the White Paper has attracted intense

attention of automotive industry and now

has grown as the industry standard of

automobile quality shared by all including

foreigners who are interested in Korean

automobile market. This book 'The

2005-2009 White Paper on Korean

Automobile Quality' will show you what

kind of changes had been made and what

is going on in automobile quality during

past 5 years.

The quality level of Korean automobile

industry is becoming better. The problems

in TGW-i and TGW-d are steadily

decreasing, and the scores for sales and

A/S are also slowly improving. However,

the expectation level of consumers is

being escalated at a greater margin than

those. Although consumers are enjoying

better products and services than before,

8/4/2019 White File2009

4/197

.

.

.

1

.

.

, ,

.

.

?,

?, , ?

,

.

.

?,

?, ?

.

, , ,

,

?

.

they are still coldly saying 'that's not enough'.

It was stated in last year's White Paper

that the expectations and evaluations of

consumers had moved to a disquietingdirection. It had warned that consumers

were building up reasons for why they

should buy imported cars. The research

results of this year clearly explain why

consumers behaved like that. Imported

brands were far ahead of domestic brands

in product quality and service quality.

Especially in all the areas of product

quality including TGW-i, TGW-d and

TGR, they were surely greater.

In the past, consumers had to convince

themselves first to buy imported cars.

Consumers had to throw these questions to

themselves Wouldn't others see me

negatively?, Isn't the car price too

expensive?, Wouldn't the repair and

maintenance fee cost too much? and then

get over with them. But now, many

consumers are thinking hard for why they

have to consider domestic cars only.

Questions such as Are domestic cars

cheaper?, Do they have better service?,

Are there reasons why we have to

continue buying them? must be resolved.

It is now becoming harder and harder toanswer confidently to the questions like

Why should we buy domestic cars when

imported cars have better service,

appearance, safety and less problems

while there is even not much difference in

price?'

Korea has the most selfish and closed

8/4/2019 White File2009

5/197

1,

1

. --

.

.

,

.

,

.

5

.

.

500

.

.

,

.

.

automobile market in the world that boasts

the #1 in export against domestic sales rate

and #1 in domestic market share by

domestic manufacturers. The government,manufacturers and consumers has been

contributed to build this with one mind

and kept it. But now we can find a

symptom of partial collapsing of it. Not a

small number of consumers are turning

against the idea of cheering and supporting

Korean automobile industry while

experiencing their efforts disappeared in

vain. The dominance of Hyundai-Kia

Motors over domestic automobile market

has been increased but consumer-friendly

environment is absolutely worsened.

Once the imported car market surpassed

the 50,000 units, the global powerhouses

are now ready to compete. Toyota the

world's strongest powerhouse has taken it's

first step cautiously in the Korean market

after watching over for a long time without

a word. They proclaimed that they would

like to contribute to the Korean society by

just selling 500 cars per month. And that is

with a surprisingly low price tag. When

considering inevitable fierce competition

with domestic makers over price and

fuel-efficiency, their business goal ofcontribution to society and environment

is persuasive. That's because Korean

consumers will be able to select

inexpensive and quality cars. But behind

the generous face there may be a strategy

of fettering Hyundai-Kia Motors in their

backyard which has been an obstacle in

8/4/2019 White File2009

6/197

.

. , .

,

.

.

.

. 2005

.

,

.

, .

, . ,

.

.

.

, .

.

.

,

overseas markets.

There is a thickening belief while

publishing the 7th White Paper. The

quality research has a correct answer andis predictable. If there is a change in a

certain part of a model by a certain maker,

the research result certainly finds out the

change. And if there is a trend to a certain

direction, the next research result has

backed up the fact.

Renault Samsung's run at the top for

TGW-d has been ended for the first time

this year by Hyundai. This is a predicted

result. The surpassing of Hyundai in

TGW-i in 2005 was also a predicted result.

The results from this year show that the

predominance of quality of imported cars

are expanding. This predominance of

imported cars is expected to continue. The

price competitiveness of imported cars is

expected to be stronger. Consumer's range

of selection will become wider and

quality will become more essential.

Success is not guaranteed because

of good quality. However, if the

quality is poor, selective elimination is

inevitable. Nobody can sell a car with

bad quality for an extended period of

time in a large volume. No companycan survive a long period of time

while providing poor product and

service.

There are many people who have

worked hard for this book to be made.

I give my deepest gratitude to the auto

industry personnel who have given

8/4/2019 White File2009

7/197

()

.

9

105

.

,

.

2009 11

(Jin-Kook Kim)

much suggestions for better data and

to the employees of Marketing Insight

who have worked their hardest to

carry-out the processes of thisresearch without any fault. But more

than anyone, I would like to thank and

acknowledge the 1,050,000 consumers

who have replied with sincerity for

this research during the last 9 times

including this one. I dedicate this

book along with the service and

product quality, which will be

improved through the book, to the

consumers.

November 2009

Jin-Kook Kim

CEO & President,

Marketing Insight Inc.

8/4/2019 White File2009

8/197

Contents

(Preface)

Chapter 1 (Introduction)

1. (Approach to Quality).....14

2. CPQ (CPQ Research Design).....14

3. (Understanding CPQ).....16

4. (CEQ Measurement).....17

5. CPQ (CPQ Indices).....18

6. CPQ .....19 (Respondents and Study Contents of CPQ Indices)

7. CPQ (Types and Definition of CPQ Indices).....21

8. (Cautions in data interpretation).....27

Chapter 2 2009 (Summary)

1. (2005 - 2009).....30(Trends in Major Quality Indices 2005 - 2009)

2. 2009 .....32(2009 Major Quality Indices by Maker)

Chapter 3 (Things Gone Wrong - initial)

1. (TGW-i Scores by Maker).....38

2. (TGW-i Scores by Vehicle Class).....41

3. (TGW-i Model Ranking).....43

4. (TGW-i Scores by Category).....46

5. Worst 10 (TGW-i Worst 10 Items).....47

8/4/2019 White File2009

9/197

Chapter 4 (Things Gone Wrong - durability)

1. (TGW-d Scores by Maker).....50

2. (TGW-d Scores by Vehicle Class).....53

3. (TGW-d Model Ranking).....54

4. (TGW-d Scores by Category).....57

5. Worst 10 (TGW-d Worst 10 Items).....58

Chapter 5 (Things Gone Right)

1. (TGR Scores by Maker).....62

2. (TGR Scores by Category).....65

3. / .....66(Product Attractiveness Best 10/Worst 10)

4. (TGR Model Ranking).....69

Chapter 6 (Sales Satisfaction Index)

1. SSI (SSI Composition and Importance).....74

2. SSI(SSI Scores by Maker).....76

3. SSI (SSI Scores by Category).....79

Chapter 7 (Customer Service Index)

1. CSI (CSI Composition and Importance).....82

2. CSI(CSI Scores by Maker).....83

3. CSI (CSI Scores by Category).....87

4. (Maker Competitiveness by Region).....88

Chapter 8 (Quality Stress Index)1. (QSI by Maker).....92

2. (QSI Model Ranking).....94

3. (QSI Scores by Item).....97

8/4/2019 White File2009

10/197

Chapter 9 (Overall Satisfaction)

1. (OSAT by Maker).....102

2. (OSP Rankings by Model).....105

Chapter 10 (Imports Quality Analysis)

1. .....110(Note for Interpreting Indices for Imports)

2. (TGW Scores of Imports).....112

3. (CSI Scores of Imports).....115

4. (QSI Scores of Imports).....116

5. (Overall Satisfaction of Imports).....118

6. (Image Analysis by Maker).....120

Chapter 12 (Appendix)

1. (Glossary).....124

2. (Production Period by Model).....126

3. (Overall Satisfaction).....130

4. (Sales Satisfaction Index).....141

5. (Customer Service Index).....146

6. TGR(Things Gone Right).....151

7. TGW(Things Gone Wrong).....158

8. (Quality Stress Index).....192

9. (Import).....199

8/4/2019 White File2009

11/197


1. (Approach to Quality).....14

2. CPQ (CPQ Research Design).....14

3. (Understanding CPQ)....16

4. (CEQ Measurement).....17

5. CPQ (CPQ Indices).....18

6. CPQ .....19

(Respondents and Study Contents of CPQ Indices)

7. CPQ .....21

(Types and Definition of CPQ Indices)

8. .....27

(Cautions in data interpretation)

8/4/2019 White File2009

12/197

12 Chapter 1


1. (Approach to Quality)

, . , , ,

, (CPQ: Consumer Perceived Quality)

. .

Approach to Quality :

Quality involves all stages from planning and designing of the product and

service to the final consumption, and none of them is any less important than the

other. These include design quality, purchase quality, inspection quality, and

assembly quality, etc. Yet the most important quality is the one consumers judge,

which is called CPQ (Consumer Perceived Quality). The quality referred in this

book is CPQ.

2. CPQ (CPQ Research Design)

CPQ ,

100,000 .

8 (2002-2009) [Tab. 1-1]

CPQ Research Design :

Marketing Insight uses e-mail survey for its CPQ research, a large scale study

with around 100,000 samples. The following is the overview of the research design

that has been used in the last eight studies (2002-2009) [Tab. 1-1].

8/4/2019 White File2009

13/197

Chapter 1 Introduction 13

2 : (, , )

100,000

7

1 : e-mail 2 : e-mail mail 3 : e-mail 4 :

4 - - - -

( )

(www.mktinsight.co.kr) -

,

- 60 60

2 : (, , )

100,000

7

1 : e-mail 2 : e-mail mail 3 : e-mail 4 :

4 - - - -

( )

(www.mktinsight.co.kr) -

,

- 60 60

Population Vehicle owners/Intenders (license holders) within next 2 years Target vehicle : Passenger cars (Commercial vehicles excluded)

Sample size Around 100,000 persons

DataCollection

method

Method e-mail survey

Period Every July

Process

1st Stage: Send invitation e-mail to selected samples to participate in survey 2nd Stage: e-mail recipients decide whether they will participate in survey 3rd Stage: Respondents open the e-mail and respond to the questionnaire 4th Stage: All responses are accumulated in the server of Marketing Insight

Study content s

Study contents comprise of the following four areas.- Ownership, Usage & Attitudes- Product evaluation- Service evaluation- Explanatory variables such as demographics

Data collection t ool(Questionnaire)

Data collection tools of each index are presented with basic findings inMarketing Insight website (www.mktinsight.co.kr)

Data analysis

- Samples in the primary data cannot accurately represent populationThe data is weighted by gender and model's sales volume of the year torepresent the population

- Models with less than 60 cases are considered to have an insufficient number ofsamples and eliminated from the rankings

Population Vehicle owners/Intenders (license holders) within next 2 years Target vehicle : Passenger cars (Commercial vehicles excluded)

Sample size Around 100,000 persons

DataCollection

method

Method e-mail survey

Period Every July

Process

1st Stage: Send invitation e-mail to selected samples to participate in survey 2nd Stage: e-mail recipients decide whether they will participate in survey 3rd Stage: Respondents open the e-mail and respond to the questionnaire 4th Stage: All responses are accumulated in the server of Marketing Insight

Study content s

Study contents comprise of the following four areas.- Ownership, Usage & Attitudes- Product evaluation- Service evaluation- Explanatory variables such as demographics

Data collection t ool(Questionnaire)

Data collection tools of each index are presented with basic findings inMarketing Insight website (www.mktinsight.co.kr)

Data analysis

- Samples in the primary data cannot accurately represent populationThe data is weighted by gender and model's sales volume of the year torepresent the population

- Models with less than 60 cases are considered to have an insufficient number ofsamples and eliminated from the rankings

[Tab. 1-1] CPQ

[Tab. 1-1] CPQ Study Design

8/4/2019 White File2009

14/197

14 Chapter 1

3. (Understanding CPQ)

.

(Quality Image) .

,

. ,

.

(Quality Evaluation) .

.

-, -

.

(CEQ: Consumer Experienced Quality) .

.

,

.

,

. .

.

Understanding CPQ :

There are various kinds of CPQ depending on who the consumers are, what they

evaluate, and what criterion they use.

First, Quality Image refers to consumer judgment of make and model

irrespective of whether they actually own or use the vehicle. Evaluations such as a

certain maker "makes good engines" or some model "has few minor troubles" are

typical examples.

Another type of CPQ is Quality Evaluation. It measures consumer experiences

on an emotional basis. Consumers evaluate a product or service which they have

used on a dimension of "Good Poor" and/or "Satisfied Dissatisfied".

8/4/2019 White File2009

15/197


And there is Consumer Experienced Quality (CEQ). This involves concrete

incidents experienced by consumers, and not an abstract image or emotional

evaluation. Its purpose is to measure positive or negative experiences like, "My

car pulls to one side" or "I have made a complaint to the manufacturer".

This report does not cover Quality Image, and only a part of Quality Evaluation.

Most of the quality measurement is centered around CEQ because CEQ responses

are the most sensitive to quality changes and are easy to be understood and

utilized.

4. (CEQ Measurement)

. TGR

(Things Gone Right) .

TGW(Things Gone Wrong) .

. (CEQ)

TGW, ,

, .

. 6 (Six Sigma) 1

(PPM: Parts per Million) 1 (PPH: Problems Per

Hundred Vehicles) .

CEQ Measurement :

CEQ indicates advantages and disadvantages experienced by consumers while

using a certain product or service. Of consumer experiences, positive ones that

increase satisfaction are measured as TGR (Things Gone Right), often referred to

as Attractiveness Quality. On the other hand, negative experiences that cause

dissatisfaction and complaints are called TGW (Things Gone Wrong), or Must-be

Quality. In a broader meaning of CEQ, TGW is the index that draws the most

8/4/2019 White File2009

16/197

16 Chapter 1

attention, and involves problems, defects, and malfunctions experienced by

consumers.

CEQ measurement measures the number of problems or defects consumers

experienced. Just as six sigma metrics count the number of defects by PPM (Parts

Per Million), PPH (Problems Per Hundred Vehicles) is used as a measurement unit

in the same way.

5. CPQ (CPQ Indices)

CPQ .

. , A/S,

, , .

.

7.

, A/S ,

, , ,

7 [Fig. 1-1].

CPQ Indices :

Vehicle CPQ is very complicated one. From an automotive manufacturer's point

of view, different types of quality evaluation are called for by various departments

such as sales, A/S, assembly production, research, product planning, and so on.

Thus, one or two quality indices will not be able to meet their different needs.

This paper covers a total of seven quality indices: overall satisfaction that asks

all aspects of quality; sales and A/S in the service area; initial quality, durability,

and attractiveness in the product area; and quality stress that measures

psychological responses to overall quality [Fig. 1-1].

8/4/2019 White File2009

17/197


[Fig. 1-1] 7 CPQ (7 CPQ Indices)

C P Q

Service

Product

Overall

SSI (Sales Satisfaction Index)

CSI (Customer Service Index)

QSI (Quality Stress Index)

OSAT (Overall Satisfaction)

TGW-i (Things Gone Wrong - initial)

TGW-d (Things Gone Wrong - durability)

TGR (Things Gone Right)

C P Q

Service

Product

Overall








C P Q

Service

Product

Overall















6. CPQ

(Respondents and Study Contents of CPQ Indices)

7 .

1.

2.

3.

4. TGR

5. TGW

6. A/S

7.

, ,

.

,

. .

[Tab. 1-2] ,

.

8/4/2019 White File2009

18/197

18 Chapter 1

a. : QSI (Quality Stress Index) b. : TGW-i (Things Gone Wrong-initial)c. : TGW-d (Things Gone Wrong-durability) d. A/S : CSI (Customer Service Index)e. : SSI (Sales Satisfaction Index) f. : TGR (Things Gone Right)

( ) TGW A/ S TGR

2009(3MIS) c - c c c c c

2008(3MIS) c - c c c c c

2007(1YIS) c c c c c c c

2006(2YIS) c c c c c - -

2005(3YIS) c c c c c - -

2004(4YIS) c c c c c - -

c c - - c - -

- c - - - - -

( ) TGW A/ S TGR

2009(3MIS) c - c c c c c

2008(3MIS) c - c c c c c

2007(1YIS) c c c c c c c

2006(2YIS) c c c c c - -

2005(3YIS) c c c c c - -

2004(4YIS) c c c c c - -

c c - - c - -

- c - - - - -

a

b

c

d e f

[Tab. 1-2] /

Respondents and Study Contents of CPQ Indices :

The annual syndicated research conducted by Marketing Insight comprises

seven areas excluding elementary explanatory variables such as demographic

traits.

1. Vehicle ownership and usage

2. Evaluation on vehicle purchasing process

3. Vehicle purchase plan

4. TGR evaluation

5. TGW experience

6. A/S experience

7. Vehicle quality stress

Suggesting these seven categories are dependent on the type of vehicle a

respondent drive, and how he or she had purchased and maintained it. For

example, it would be meaningless to ask a respondent who purchased a used car'what problems or defects the vehicle had so far' or another who was not involved

in the purchasing process 'whether the salesperson was friendly'. Some questions,

however, may apply to all respondents.

[Table. 1-2] shows which questions were asked to consumers depending on the

type of vehicles they purchased, and the time frame of major indices for CPQ.

8/4/2019 White File2009

19/197


a. QSI: Quality Stress Index b. TGW-i: Things Gone Wrong-initialc. TGW-d: Thi ngs Gone Wrong-durability d. A/S satisfaction: CSI (Customer Service Index)

e. SSI: Sales Satisfaction Index f. TGR: Things Gone Right

Target

Purchaset iming

(Ownershipperiod)

Major st udy conten t

OwnershipU & A

Purchaseplan

Qualitystress

TGWexperience

A/ SPurchaseprocess

evaluation

TGREvaluation

New carbuyer

2009 (3MIS) c - c c c c c

2008 (3MIS) c - c c c c c

2007 (1YIS) c c c c c c c

2006 (2YIS) c c c c c - -

2005 (3YIS) c c c c c - -

2004 (4YIS) c c c c c - -

Used carbuyer

Total c c - - c - -

Non-owner Total - c - - - - -

Target

Purchaset iming

(Ownershipperiod)

Major st udy conten t

OwnershipU & A

Purchaseplan

Qualitystress

TGWexperience

A/ SPurchaseprocess

evaluation

TGREvaluation

New carbuyer

2009 (3MIS) c - c c c c c

2008 (3MIS) c - c c c c c

2007 (1YIS) c c c c c c c

2006 (2YIS) c c c c c - -

2005 (3YIS) c c c c c - -

2004 (4YIS) c c c c c - -

Used carbuyer

Total c c - - c - -

Non-owner Total - c - - - - -

a

b

c

d e f

[Tab. 1-2] Ownership Time Frame of Major Indices

7. CPQ (Types and Definition of CPQ Indices)

CPQ . %

, .

, .

7, .

Types and Definition of CPQ Indices :

As there are various kinds of CPQ, there also exist many types of measurement

such as percentage (%) or points. The number of problems or defects per hundred

vehicles can be counted using PPH (Problems Per Hundred Vehicles), and so can

be the number of stressful incidents experienced using SPH (Stressful incidents

Per Hundred Vehicles). The figures can be suggested in % or point. This paper

deals with seven quality indices, and their characteristics and units are all

different.

1) (Overall Satisfaction): 6

(2009 12009 6 )

10(110)

8/4/2019 White File2009

20/197

20 Chapter 1

.

1,000 (OSS: Overall

Satisfaction Score), 10 8, 9, 10

(%), Top 3 Box % (OSP: Overall Satisfied Percent)

.

. ,

, /

.

Overall Satisfaction: This measures overall satisfaction of vehicle quality

and service on a 10-point scale by new car buyers within 6 months of ownership

(purchased between January and June, 2009).

The average of the above results is converted to a maximum of 1,000 points,

which is called OSS (Overall Satisfaction Score). OSP (Overall Satisfied Percent)

refers to what is commonly called the 'Top 3 Box %', which records a percentage

of respondents who gave the ratings of 8, 9, or 10 on a 10-point scale. This score

reflects consumer satisfaction of their purchased vehicle and the maker that

manufactured it and provided service for it. Thus, the overall satisfaction score

evaluates an automaker's corporate activities in terms of its corporate and brand

image, advertising, publicity as well as its product and service quality.

2) (SSI: Sales Satisfaction Index): 1

(2008 7~2009 6 )

, ,

3

, 27

. SSI

1,000 (derived score)

, 27 (dichotomy items)

(Service Standard Fulfillment Rate) .

SSI: Sales Satisfaction Index: New car buyers within one year of

ownership (July 2008 - June 2009) evaluate sales outlets and salespersons they

8/4/2019 White File2009

21/197


encountered during their car buying process. SSI comprises three categories of the

purchase process: sales outlet, salesperson, and delivery process, and 27 items of

consumer experienced quality. The maximum score of SSI is 1,000 points derived

from the responses to 27 CEQ items. The responses from 27 dichotomy items are

presented as the Service Standard Fulfillment Rate.

3) A/S (CSI: Customer Service Index): 1(2008 7

~2009 6)

21

. CSI

1,000 , 21

.

.

CSI: Customer Service Index: CSI indicates the aftersales service

satisfaction score of service users who have visited direct, authorized, or affiliated

service centers within the past one year (between July 2008 and June 2009)

measured by 21 CEQ items. The maximum score of CSI is 1,000 points derived

from responses to the CEQ items. The responses based on 21 dichotomy items are

presented as Service Standard Fulfillment Rate. Basically, the measurement

method is the same as that of SSI.

4) (TGR: Things Gone Right): 1

(2008 72009 6 ) , 7

5 . 1,000

. TGR 7 56

, 56 5

.

8/4/2019 White File2009

22/197

22 Chapter 1

TGR: Things Gone Right: New car buyers within one year of ownership

(purchased between July 2008 and June 2009) were asked on a 5-point scale how

satisfied they were with their vehicle in 7 categories such as design, driving

performance, etc., which was weighted according to category importance, then

finally combined into maximum 1,000 points. The TGR scale consists of 7

categories and 56 items and overall satisfaction. Respondents were asked to

evaluate each of the 56 items on a 5-point scale.

5) (TGW-i: Things Gone Wrong - initial):

6 (2009 12009 6 )

13 170 , 344

(L&O: Location and Occasion) 100 .

PPH (Problems Per Hundred Vehicles) .

TGW-i: Things Gone Wrong - initial: TGW-i measures the number of

defects and problems experienced by new car buyers within six months of

ownership (purchased between January and June 2009) through 13 categories, 170

items and 344 L&Os (Location and Occasion of problems occurred), which is

converted to the average number of PPH (Problems Per Hundred Vehicles.)

6) (TGW-d: Things Gone Wrong - durability):

3 (2006 )

. PPH

.

TGW-d: Things Gone Wrong - durability: TGW-d measures defects andproblems experienced by new car buyers after three years of ownership

(purchased in 2006) using the same measurement frame and process as TGW-i.

This is also shown in PPH.

7) (QSI: Quality Stress Index): 1(2008 1

2008 12 )

8/4/2019 White File2009

23/197


. 18

, SPH (Stressful incidents Per Hundred

Vehicles) TGW PPH .

QSI: Quality Stress Index: QSI measures psychological tensions and

conflicts experienced by new car buyers at an average of one year of ownership

(purchased between January and December 2008). Quality Stress is measured by

18 items that encompass quality experiences of both product and service. The

measurement unit uses SPH (Stressful incidents Per Hundred Vehicles) in the

same method as PPH is calculated.

8/4/2019 White File2009

24/197

24 Chapter 1

[2009 9 ]

Index (2009 )

1.

: 6 (2009 1 6) : 10 ?

(, Top3Box%)

2.

: 1 (2008 7 2009 6) : 10 ? (, Top3Box%)

3. A/S A/S

: 1 : 10 ?

(, Top3Box%)

4. : 1 (2008 7 2009 6) : 7 5 ? ()

5. : 6 (2009 1 6) : 13 170 100 (PPH)

6. : 3 (2006) : 13 170 100 (PPH)

7. : 2008 ( 1 ) : , 18 100

(SPH)

Index (2009 )

1.

: 6 (2009 1 6) : 10 ?

(, Top3Box%)

2.

: 1 (2008 7 2009 6) : 10 ? (, Top3Box%)

3. A/S A/S

: 1 : 10 ?

(, Top3Box%)

4. : 1 (2008 7 2009 6) : 7 5 ? ()

5. : 6 (2009 1 6) : 13 170 100 (PPH)

6. : 3 (2006) : 13 170 100 (PPH)

7. : 2008 ( 1 ) : , 18 100

(SPH)

[Based on 2009 the 9th Syndicated Research]

I ndex Cont ent (Based on 2009)

1. OS Score, %

Who: New car buyers within 6 months of ownership (Jan.-June '09)Items: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the company when

considering sales, service, and quality all together?(Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

2. SSI Score, %Who: New car buyers within 1 year of ownership (July '08-June '09)Items: How would you rate the sales outlet sales person on a 10-point

scale? (Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

3. CSI Score, %

Who: Direct/Authorized/Affiliated service center users within last 1 year(Affiliated service center added in '06)

Items: How would you rate the service center you visited? (10-point scale)(Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

4. TGRWho: New car buyers within 1 year of ownership (July '08-June '09)Items: When considering all 7 aspects of the vehicle, how would you rate it

on a scale from 1 to 5? (Average score per 1,000 points)

5. TGW-i

Who: New car buyers within 6 months of ownership (Jan-June '09)

Items: Problems per hundred vehicles experienced in 13 categories and 170items (PPH)

6. TGW-dWho: New car buyers after 3 years of ownership (after '06)Items: Problems per hundred vehicles experienced in 13 categories and 170

items (PPH)

7. QSIWho: New car buyers in '08 (average 1 year of ownership)Items: Stress per hundred vehicles experienced in 18 Items related to

vehicle problems & service (SPH)

I ndex Cont ent (Based on 2009)

1. OS Score, %

Who: New car buyers within 6 months of ownership (Jan.-June '09)Items: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the company when

considering sales, service, and quality all together?(Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

2. SSI Score, %Who: New car buyers within 1 year of ownership (July '08-June '09)Items: How would you rate the sales outlet sales person on a 10-point

scale? (Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

3. CSI Score, %

Who: Direct/Authorized/Affiliated service center users within last 1 year(Affiliated service center added in '06)

Items: How would you rate the service center you visited? (10-point scale)(Average score per 1,000 points, Top3Box%)

4. TGRWho: New car buyers within 1 year of ownership (July '08-June '09)Items: When considering all 7 aspects of the vehicle, how would you rate it

on a scale from 1 to 5? (Average score per 1,000 points)

5. TGW-i

Who: New car buyers within 6 months of ownership (Jan-June '09)

Items: Problems per hundred vehicles experienced in 13 categories and 170items (PPH)

6. TGW-dWho: New car buyers after 3 years of ownership (after '06)Items: Problems per hundred vehicles experienced in 13 categories and 170

items (PPH)

7. QSIWho: New car buyers in '08 (average 1 year of ownership)Items: Stress per hundred vehicles experienced in 18 Items related to

vehicle problems & service (SPH)

[Tab. 1-3] 7

[Tab. 1-3] 7 CPQ Indices: Target and Item

8/4/2019 White File2009

25/197


8. (Cautions in data interpretation)

.

,

.

, 7

1 6

. 2009 4 Sorento R

.

3MIS (Month In Service) Sorento R 2MIS

.

.

.

Cautions in data interpretation:

Vehicle research produces more complex results than other types of research.

Thus, poor understanding of the samples and the target models from which the

data is drawn can elicit misinterpretation.

An example of the TGW-i score from the paper illustrates such a case. The

TGW-i score is drawn from those who purchased a new vehicle between January

and June of the same year the study is conducted. It means that, in the case of

2009 study, no other model could beat the TGW-i score of Sorento R that was

launched in April 2009. While the average ownership period of other models is 3

MIS (Month in Service), that of Sorento R is less than 2 MIS on average. Without

understanding such limitation, a direct comparison of scores will only lead to

erroneous conclusions.

In this paper, additional explanations are provided where needed to minimize

possibilities of misinterpretation.

8/4/2019 White File2009

26/197

Chapter 22009 (Summary)

1. (2005 -2009).....30(Trends in Major Quality Indices 2005 - 2009)

2. 2009 .....32(2009 Major Quality Indices by Maker)

8/4/2019 White File2009

27/197

Chapter 2 Summary 27

Chapter 22009 (Summary)

1. (20052009)

(Trends in Major Quality Indices 20052009)

5 . 7

5

.

08 - 09

. (OSP) 2.0%p

(QSI) 09 08 .

08 - 09

.

(OSP) 05 62.4% 08

5%p 08 50%

46.3% . 09 2.0%p 48.3% , 50% . 80%

.

.

.

[Tab. 2-1].

Trends in Major Quality Indices 20052009:The White Paper has been presenting the past five years data only. The

industrial average scores of the seven indices across the past five years

indicate the trends in product and service qualities of automobile evaluated

by domestic consumers.

In the comparison of '08 - '09 quality changes, most of the indices had

improved. All the '09 quality indices except 'Quality Stress Index' (QSI)

8/4/2019 White File2009

28/197

28 Chapter 2 2009

had improved from those of '08 including 'Overall Satisfaction Percent'

(OSP) with 2.0%p improvement. This shows that the product and service

quality of automotive industry had somewhat improved between '08 and '09.

When taking a look at each index, OSP recorded 62.4% in 2005 and

declined 5%p annually on an average. In 2008, it could not meet 50% with

46.3%. It rose 2%p in 2009 to 48.3% but still could not meet 50%. When

considering over 80% rates in developed countries in automobiles, the current

number is very low. However, it is problematic to analyze this difference as a

difference in objective standard. Instead, it is more reasonable to state that the

consumers tendency in response had a greater effect. It seems to be because of the

ungenerous tendency of Korean consumers when they evaluate [Tab. 2-1].

, .

08 - 09 (SSI) A/S(CSI) 4 - 5(1,000

) , (TGR)

(TGW) . (TGW-i)

(TGW-d) 167 PPH 439 PPH

. ,

, .

(QSI) .

5 08 - 09 7

6 ,

.

, .

Although the satisfaction rates for product quality and service quality provided

by the auto makers have increased, there was more improvement in product than

service. During the years 2008 and 2009, SSI and CSI satisfaction rates have

increased slightly by 4 to 5 points (1,000 point scale), but TGR and TGW indices,

8/4/2019 White File2009

29/197


149155117123141QSI **

756773762781786CSI*790797762761765SSI *

757768731541***558TGR*

496506494457439TGW-d**

180193174180167TGW-i**

2009(9 th) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 th) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

OSP* 48.3 46.3 52.7 58.9 62.4

149155117123141QSI **

756773762781786CSI*790797762761765SSI *

757768731541***558TGR*

496506494457439TGW-d**

180193174180167TGW-i**

2009(9 th) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 th) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

OSP* 48.3 46.3 52.7 58.9 62.4

* A high score represents better quality.** A low score represents better quality.***

which are related to the product, have increased greatly. Especially, TGW-i and

TGW-d with the scores of 167 PPH and 439 PPH respectively, showed the best

results since the measurement had started. These are good signs showing that

problems, defects and break downs of automobile experienced by Korean

consumers are decreasing.

The QSI, which measures the overall psychological responses for product and

service quality of vehicle, had increased somewhat compared to last year.

When considering the trends of the past 5 years generally, during 2008 and

2009, there has been improvements in 6 out of 7 quality indices which are more

than any other year.

Although many of the auto makers suffered from the economic crisis, it can besaid this year was a satisfactory year for consumers of car.

[Tab. 2-1] (2005-2009)

(Trends in Major Quality Indices 2005-2009)

2. 2009

(2009 Major Quality Indices by Maker)

: 113 PPH

5 , 133 PPH,

201 PPH, 248 PPH, 298 PPH . 05

, ,

2 . 106

PPH 1 .

8/4/2019 White File2009

30/197

30 Chapter 2 2009

2009 Major Quality Indices by Maker:

TGW-i: The consumers of Renault Samsung reported the fewest problems

among the 5 auto makers with an average of 113 PPH followed by Hyundai (133

PPH), Kia (201 PPH), GM Daewoo (248 PPH) and Ssangyong (298 PPH).

Although the tables had been turned around and around between Hyundai and

Renault Samsung since 2005, Hyundai had remained in the 2nd place this year

following last year. Although it is difficult to categorize imported cars together

with domestic cars, imports (106 PPH) surpassed the 1st place Renault Samsung

by a slight difference.

: 404 PPH 417 PPH 1 . 05

. 3 444 PPH ,

480 PPH , 558 PPH .

93 PPH

4 . 385 PPH 1 .

TGW-d: Hyundai (404 PPH) surpassed Renault Samsung (417 PPH) for the

first time coming in 1st place. This change was first expected when Hyundai had

surpassed Renault Samsung in TGW-i for the first time in 2005. The 3rd place was

Kia (444 PPH) and the next was Ssangyong (480 PPH), and GM Daewoo (558

PPH) in order. Ssangyong, which had been in the last place for the past few years,

improved by 93 PPH, surpassing GM Daewoo with a large gap to take the 4th

place. Imported cars with an average 385 PPH were ahead of 1st place Hyundai.

: , ,

. 558(1,000 )

08 541 . 611

1 , 568, 543, 537,

512 . . 719

1 100

.

8/4/2019 White File2009

31/197


TGR: Different from the number of problems, new cars are evaluated by the

attractiveness of their function, performance and design. The industry average for

TGR was 558 points (1,000 point scale) improved from 541 points in 2008. By

maker, Renault Samsung maintained its 1st place position from last year with 611

points, followed by Hyundai (568 points), GM Daewoo (537 points) and Kia (512

points). The strongest point of imported cars was the TGR. The fact that imported

cars surpassed domestic number one ranked Renault Samsung by more than 100

points (719 points) shows there is still much improvement needed for TGR of

domestic makers.

: 765, 811

1. 770, 761, 749, 745

. 8 1

800. 798 .

Sales Satisfaction: Industry average was 765 points while Renault Samsung

came in first with 811 points amongst domestic makers. Next was Hyundai with

770 points, followed by Ssangyong (761 points), GM Daewoo (749 points), andKia (745 points). Renault Samsung, which had been the 1st for the past 8 years,

was the only domestic maker to be in the 800 point range. Imported cars (798

points) could not match Renault Samsung.

A/S: 786, 825

8 1 . (786), (782), (780

), (777) . 2

39 , 2 5 9

4 . 806

.

A/S Satisfaction: Industry average was 786 points while Renault Samsung

came in first with 825 points maintaining its top spot for 8 consecutive years.

8/4/2019 White File2009

32/197

32 Chapter 2 2009

Following was GM Daewoo (786 points), Hyundai (782 points), Ssangyong (780

points), and Kia (777 points) in order. Renault Samsung led the 2nd place GM

Daewoo by 39 points, while there was only a mere 9 point difference within the

makers from 2nd to 5th place. Although imported cars scored 806 points

surpassing most domestic makers, it could not match Renault Samsung.

: 141 SPH(Stress Per Hundred),

121 SPH , (122 SPH)

2 . 155 SPH, 159 SPH, 200

SPH . 141 SPH .

QSI: Industry average was 141 SPH (Stress Per Hundred). The consumers of

Renault Samsung had the least number of problems (121 SPH) and Hyundai came

in 2nd with a slight difference (122 SPH). Next was Kia (155 SPH), GM Daewoo

(159 SPH), and Ssangyong (200 SPH) in order. Imported cars with a score of 141

SPH same as the industry average showed poor performance comparatively.

: 6

(10 8 - 10 ) 48.3% . 63.1% 1 ,

(50.0%), (43.3%), (37.7%), (34.9%) . 8

1 60% , 50%

. 67.2% 1 4.1%p

[Tab. 2-2].

OSP: Amongst consumers who have purchased new cars within 6 months, the

Satisfied in Overall' (8 to 10 on 10 point scale) rate was 48.3%. Amongst

domestic makers, Renault Samsung came in 1st with 63.1%, followed by with

great difference Hyundai (50.0%), Kia (43.3%), GM Daewoo (37.7%), and

Ssangyong (34.9%). Renault Samsung which came in 1st for 8 consecutive years

was the only one in the 60% range, while it's competitors had remained below

50%. Imported cars (67.2%) scored higher than Renault Samsung by 4.1%p which

is not a small difference[Tab. 2-2].

8/4/2019 White File2009

33/197


141200121155122159141QSI **

806780825777782786786CSI *

798761811745770749765SSI *719543611512568537558TGR*

106298113201133248167TGW-i**

385480417444404558439TGW-d**

Total GMDAT HMC KMC RSM SYM I mpor t

OSP* 48.3 37.7 50.0 43.3 63.1 34.9 67.2

141200121155122159141QSI **

806780825777782786786CSI *

798761811745770749765SSI *719543611512568537558TGR*

106298113201133248167TGW-i**

385480417444404558439TGW-d**

Total GMDAT HMC KMC RSM SYM I mpor t

OSP* 48.3 37.7 50.0 43.3 63.1 34.9 67.2

: BIC (Best in Class), : WIC (Worst in Class): BIC (Best in Class), : WIC (Worst in Class)* A high score represents better quality.** A low score represents better quality.

7

, .

1, A/S

.

, ,

. ,

1 .

, 1

.

When summarizing the results of the 7 Quality indices of car makers, the

situation which stands out the most is Renault Samsung's walkover. Renault

Samsung came in 1st in most of the indices, advanced far ahead in sales and A/S

service categories without any competitor near by including imports.

Although there is limitation in categorizing into one, service provided by

imported cars, especially TGR quality was on a much higher level. Imported cars

surpassed number 1 ranked domestic maker lightly in the aspects of product

quality including TGW-i, TGR and TGW-d. With exceptionally high scores inTGR, it surpassed the 1st place domestic brand in OSP.

[Tab. 2-2] 2009

(2009 Major Quality Indices by Maker)

8/4/2019 White File2009

34/197

Chapter 3 (TGW-i)

1. (TGW-i Scores by Maker).....38

2. (TGW-i Scores by Vehicle Class).....41

3. (TGW-i Model Ranking).....43

4. (TGW-i Scores by Category).....46

5. Worst 10 (TGW-i Worst 10 Items).....47

8/4/2019 White File2009

35/197

Chapter 3 TGW-i 35

Chapter 3 (TGW-i)

1. (TGW-i Scores by Maker)

6

(TGW-i: Things Gone Wrong - initial) 1 100

PPH(Problems Per Hundred Vehicles) .

TGW-i 05 5 13 170 .

(L&O: Location and Occasion)

, 344 L&O .

09 167 PPH

. 02 310 PPH 1/2

.

113 PPH

5 , 133 PPH, 201PPH,

248 PPH, 298 PPH . 106 PPH 1

[Fig. 3-1].

TGW-i Scores by Maker:

TGW-i designates the number of quality problems encountered by new car

buyers within the six months of ownership, measured in PPH (Problems Per

Hundred Vehicles).Measurement of TGW-i was based on 13 categories and 170 items since 2005.

Some items include sub-items to verify the location or occasions (L&O) of defects

and malfunctions and when taking into consideration the number of L&O counts

344.

The 2009 industry average of TGW-i recorded 167 PPH, a history low. Being

1/2 of the industry average 310 PHH in year 2002, it shows a remarkable growth

8/4/2019 White File2009

36/197

36 Chapter 3

in the automobile TGW-i over the past few years.

Amongst this year's domestic companies, Renault Samsung's consumers

reported on average 113 PPH as the lowest out of the 5 companies. Hyundai

following with 133 PPH, Kia 201 PPH, GM Daewoo 248 PPH, and Ssangyong

298 PPH. Despite some difficulty with categorizing, imported cars had 106 PPH

showing less problems than Renault Samsung, domestic's number one, with a

small difference [Fig. 3-1].

05 1

. 04 1

05 . , , 08 09

. .

05 56 PPH, 31 PPH

. , 50 PPH

.

, , 09

106 PPH 08 . 06

100

PPH .

Renault Samsung and Hyundai have competed for the number one spot after

2005 in the TGW-i section while leading the improvements. Renault Samsung's

stronghold of the number one spot had fallen to Hyundai for the first time in 2005,

after holding onto the top spot with great difference until 2004. Despite continuous

placement changes between the two companies, in 2008 and also in 2009, Renault

Samsung took over the top spot. Through the intense competition amongst each

other, the two companies were both able to exceed other companies greatly in

quality improvement. Compared to 2005, Renault Samsung and Hyundai were

able to decrease their number of problem experience by 56 PPH and 31 PPH,

respectively. On the other hand, Kia was standing still, but GM Daewoo and

8/4/2019 White File2009

37/197

Chapter 3 TGW-i 37

Ssangyong stepped backwards with increases of 50 PPH each.

Imported cars, always ranked amongst the top with Renault Samsung and

Hyundai, outperformed all domestic makers in 2009 with 106 PPH following the

year 2008. Imports have been consistently decreasing the amount of problems and

showing great possibility in approaching the below 100 PPH mark this following

year.

. ,

,

.

.

,

, A/S .

. 1

, . , ,

.

Currently, domestic cars are competing with overseas companies globally. It is

shown that domestic cars have been lower in the product quality, which is

composed of TGW-i, TGW-d, and TGR, compared to imported cars. When the

industrial average of domestic cars become of similar level with imports, that is

when we can say it has the quality for global competitiveness.

TGW-i is being accepted as the most important quality index that is related with

all the processes from product conception, design layout to A/S. This study had

revealed the close relationship between the company's overall management status

and TGW-i. During the past one year, Ssangyong and GM Daewoo's TGW-i have

worsened greatly without prior example and that has a connection with their

financial difficulties. It can be said that slow sales, financial difficulties and

quality deterioration are all linked to each other like a chain.

8/4/2019 White File2009

38/197

38 Chapter 3

16 718 017419 318 0

113

15 915 715 4

169

133

16 1

14 8

19 1

164

201

217

17 119 3

20 1

24824 1

22 4

198195

24 425 2 257

20 8

298

10610 1 11 6

15 816 3

0

50

10 0

15 0

20 0

25 0

30 0

35 0

40 0

45 0

2005(5th )

'05(3)

2006(6th )

'06(3)

2007(7 th )

'07(3)

2008(8th )

'08(3)

2009(9th )

'09(3)

2005(5th )

'05(3)

2006(6th )

'06(3)

2007(7 th )

'07(3)

2008(8th )

'08(3)

2009(9th )

'09(3)

RSM

HMC

KMC

SYM

GMDAT

Year (Wave)

MY (MIS)

(PPH)

I nd. Avg.

Import

RSMHMC KMC SYMGMDAT IMPORTRSMRSMHMCHMC KMCKMC SYMSYMGMDATGMDAT IMPORTIMPORT

Better

[Fig. 3-1]

(Things Gone Wrong - initial by Maker)

2. (TGW-i Scores by Vehicle Class)

SUV , 9

. 08 SUV

SUV SUV / SUV .

09 (107 PPH)

1 . (135 PPH), (154 PPH) .

SUV / SUV 155 PPH 4 ,

SUV 220 PPH . SUV 08

09

(226 PPH)

[Tab. 3-1].

08 (-39 PPH) SUV(-32

PPH) . ( 34 PPH).

8/4/2019 White File2009

39/197

Chapter 3 TGW-i 39

252

155Small/Mid SUV*

4,170

211

220

135

107

154

183

178

226

167

MY09 (3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 t h) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY08 (3MIS) MY'07 (3MIS) MY'06 (3MIS) MY'05 (3MIS)

I nd. Avg. 180 174 193 180

Mini 241 249 169 210

Small 190 176 188 154

Sub-mid. 149 161 200 179

Midsize 193 150 187 172

Large 119 145 177 173

Luxury 130 154 120 202

Large SUV*

183200 209 179

MPV 217 193 246 254

Base 5,793 6,666 6,823 6,754

252

155Small/Mid SUV*

4,170

211

220

135

107

154

183

178

226

167

MY09 (3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 t h) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY08 (3MIS) MY'07 (3MIS) MY'06 (3MIS) MY'05 (3MIS)

I nd. Avg. 180 174 193 180

Mini 241 249 169 210

Small 190 176 188 154

Sub-mid. 149 161 200 179

Midsize 193 150 187 172

Large 119 145 177 173

Luxury 130 154 120 202

Large SUV*

183200 209 179

MPV 217 193 246 254

Base 5,793 6,666 6,823 6,754

* Due to the increased number and sales volume of large SUV models, the SUV segment is divided from the 2008 study.- Large SUV: Rexton II, Veracruz, Mohave- Small/Mid SUV: All other SUV models

* SUV 2008 SUV 2 - SUV: Rexton II, Veracruz, Mohave- / SUV: SUV

TGW-i Scores by Vehicle Class:

Vehicles were classified into a total of nine segments from mini to luxury,

including SUV and MPV. In 2008, the SUV segment is shown in two

sub-segments of large SUV and small/mid SUV due to an increase in the number

of large SUV models and in their sales volume.

The best performing segment of 2009 was 'Large' (107 PPH) for the second

consecutive year. Following in the rankings are 'Luxury' (135 PPH) and 'Midsize'

(154 PPH). In the case of SUV, 'Small/mid SUV' scored 155 PPH, ranking fourth,

while 'Large SUV' belongs to one of the lowest in rank. Last year's worst player,

'Large SUV', scored the second most problems after 'Mini' (226 PPH) [Tab. 3-1].

Compared to 2008, the vehicle class with the largest reduction in problems were

'Midsize' (-39 PPH) and 'Large SUV' (-32 PPH), respectively. On the other hand,

'Sub-mid' recorded the largest increase in problems by (34 PPH).

[Tab. 3-1]

(Things Gone Wrong - initial by Vehicle Class)

8/4/2019 White File2009

40/197

40 Chapter 3

3. (TGW-i Model Ranking)

2009 60 20

.

(: Genesis Coupe, Click) [Tab. 3-2].

09 SM3 60 PPH. Opirus

76 PPH 2, Grandeur(TG) 91 PPH 3, Genesis 101 PPH 4,

Santa Fe(CM) 109 PPH 5 [Tab. 3-2].

TGW-i Model Ranking:

TGW-i is based on the responses of consumers whose vehicles were purchased

in the first half of 2009. The list includes 20 passenger cars with more than 60

cases per model. Thus, those having an insufficient number of cases, such as

Genesis Coupe and Click were excluded from the ranking [Tab. 3-2].

SM3 ranked first with the least amount of problems in the 2009 TGW-i ranking

with a score of 60 PPH. Ranked number two was Opirus (76 PPH), with

Grandeur(TG) (91 PPH) 3rd, Genisis (101 PPH) 4th, and Santa Fe(CM) (109

PPH) ranked 5th [Tab. 3-2].

Top 10 6

. 3, 4, 5 Grandeur(TG), Genesis, Santa Fe(CM) Sonata(NF),

Avante(HD), Tucson 8 - 10 .

1 SM3 New SM5 6 2 10

.

QM5 65 PPH 1 .

Opirus(76 PPH), Sportage(125 PPH) 2 2, 7

Top 10 . Soul(198 PPH), Forte(213 PPH) 14, 16

.

All New Matiz(207 PPH) 15, Winstorm(222 PPH) 17

.

.

8/4/2019 White File2009

41/197

Chapter 3 TGW-i 41

3 (SM3, Opirus, Grandeur(TG)) 100

PPH . 100 PPH

08 Genesis (91 PPH) .

.

By manufacturer, Hyundai dominated the rankings by placing six models in the

top ten list. Grandeur(TG), Genesis and Santa Fe(CM) ranked from 3rd to 5th,

while Sonata(NF), Avante(HD) and Tucson ranked 8th to 10th, boasting superior

competitiveness against competitors.

Renault Samsung placed two models in the top ten list, with SM3 ranked 1st

and New SM5 ranked 6th. Due to the insufficient cases, QM5 was not ranked but

received an outstanding score of 65 PPH which showed the potential of the

ranking 1st maker in TGW-i.

Opirus (76 PPH) and Sportage (125 PPH) were ranked 2nd and 7th being the

only 2 models from KIA to rank within Top 10. Soul (198 PPH) and Forte (213

PPH) each 14th and 16th ranked in the mid-to-low range.

GM Daewoo had the all New Matiz (207 PPH) on 15th, and Winstorm (222

PPH) on 17th, both also ranking in the lower middle range.

Ssangyong, due to lack of sales, not even a model was able to be compared.

The distinctive feature of this study was that the 3 models (SM3, Opirus,

Grandeur(TG)) were all under 100 PPH obtaining excellent grades. The only

model with less than 100 PPH in the past was 2008 Genesis (91 PPH). Through

this stimulating cases, we anticipate many more models to render in the future.

8/4/2019 White File2009

42/197

42 Chapter 3

a. , 2009 30 (Genesis Coupe, Click)

b. , *

---309a272aMohave-

----306Lacetti Premiere20

--269(24)208(19)222Winstorm17

----213Forte16

-308(23)201(17)245a130aGrand Carnival-

278(23)211(*)183(14)214(20)242aNew Carens-

Rank Model2009(9 t h) 2008( 8t h) 2007( 7t h) 2006( 6t h) 2005( 5t h)

MY'09 (3MIS) MY'08 (3MIS) MY'07 (3MIS) MY'06 (3MIS) MY'05 (3MIS)

I nd. Avg. 167 180 174 193 180

1 SM3 60 120(4) 143(5) 135(1) 144(3)

- QM5 65a 259(23) - - -

2 Opirus 76 128(6) 155(8) 100(*) 224(17)

3 Grandeur(TG) 91 115(3) 132(2) 177(8) 174b

4 Genesis 101 91(1) - - -

5 Santa Fe(CM) 109 148(10) 157(9) 255(20) 142(2)

- Verna(MC) 113a - - - -

6 New SM5 116 159(11) 149(7) 155(3) 162(6)

7 Sportage 125 137(8) 141(4) 164(5) 178(8)

8 Sonata(NF) 135 201(18) 124(1) 181(10) 178(8)

- Sorento R 141b - - - -

9 Avante(HD) 146 126(5) 163(10) 207(*) 162(6)

10 Tucson 160 114(2) 139(3) 154(2) 155(4)

- Tosca 164a 215(21) 217(19) 270(22) 190(12)

11 i30 166 197(16) - - -

12 SM7 171 135(7) 213(18) 179(9) 226(19)

13 New Pride 178 144(9) 170(12) 184(11) 125b

- Veracruz 187a 300a 193(15) - -

14 Soul 198 - - - -

15 All New Matiz 207 196(15) 249(23) 169(6) 210b

- Equus 208a - - - -

18 Morning 229 266(25) 181(13) 159(4) 196(13)

19 Lotze Innovation 231 200(17) 168(11) 173(7) 185(11)

---309a272aMohave-

----306Lacetti Premiere20

--269(24)208(19)222Winstorm17

----213Forte16

-308(23)201(17)245a130aGrand Carnival-

278(23)211(*)183(14)214(20)242aNew Carens-

Rank Model2009(9 t h) 2008( 8t h) 2007( 7t h) 2006( 6t h) 2005( 5t h)

MY'09 (3MIS) MY'08 (3MIS) MY'07 (3MIS) MY'06 (3MIS) MY'05 (3MIS)

I nd. Avg. 167 180 174 193 180

1 SM3 60 120(4) 143(5) 135(1) 144(3)

- QM5 65a 259(23) - - -

2 Opirus 76 128(6) 155(8) 100(*) 224(17)

3 Grandeur(TG) 91 115(3) 132(2) 177(8) 174b

4 Genesis 101 91(1) - - -

5 Santa Fe(CM) 109 148(10) 157(9) 255(20) 142(2)

- Verna(MC) 113a - - - -

6 New SM5 116 159(11) 149(7) 155(3) 162(6)

7 Sportage 125 137(8) 141(4) 164(5) 178(8)

8 Sonata(NF) 135 201(18) 124(1) 181(10) 178(8)

- Sorento R 141b - - - -

9 Avante(HD) 146 126(5) 163(10) 207(*) 162(6)

10 Tucson 160 114(2) 139(3) 154(2) 155(4)

- Tosca 164a 215(21) 217(19) 270(22) 190(12)

11 i30 166 197(16) - - -

12 SM7 171 135(7) 213(18) 179(9) 226(19)

13 New Pride 178 144(9) 170(12) 184(11) 125b

- Veracruz 187a 300a 193(15) - -

14 Soul 198 - - - -

15 All New Matiz 207 196(15) 249(23) 169(6) 210b

- Equus 208a - - - -

18 Morning 229 266(25) 181(13) 159(4) 196(13)

19 Lotze Innovation 231 200(17) 168(11) 173(7) 185(11)

a. Insufficient number of samples(30~59), excluded from the rankingsModels with less than 30 samples are not presented in the list. (eg. Genesis Coupe, Click, etc.)

b. Launched during the study period, excluded from the rankings* Data including both existing and new models are excluded from the rankings.

[Tab. 3-2] 2005~2009

(Thing Gone Wrong - initial Model Ranking 2005~2009)

8/4/2019 White File2009

43/197

Chapter 3 TGW-i 43

4. (TGW-i Scores by Category)

13 /

35.6 PPH , (25.7 PPH), /

(15.3 PPH), /(15.0 PPH) .

05 3, 4 / /

09 4, 3 . /

06 .

. 1 PPH

[Tab. 3-3].

08 5.8 PPH

. /, /,

1 - 2 PPH , 10 .

TGW-i Scores by Category:

When comparing the number of problems of 13 respective categories that

comprise of TGW-i, 'Noise/Unusual sound' turned out to be the most problematic

with 35.6 PPH, followed by 'Engine' (25.7 PPH), 'A/V system' (15.3 PPH) and

'Handling/Steering wheel' (15.0 PPH). The ranking order of 'Handling/Steering

wheel' and 'A/V system' as the 3rd and the 4th had not been changed since 2005,

however in 2009 they have switched the ranking with each other as the 4th and the

3rd which is the result of constant decrease of the problems related to

'Handling/Steering wheel' since 2006. This category has shown much

improvement than any other. The 'Battery' problem, shown lower than 1 PPH,

became too difficult to maintain as a category [Tab. 3-3].

The 'Engine' category had decreased the most by 5.8 PPH in the number of

problems by category against '08. While HVAC', Interior and Transmission

categories had slightly increased by 1 to 2 PPH, the rest 10 categories all had

decreased.

8/4/2019 White File2009

44/197

44 Chapter 3

10.89.89.310.09.6Body/Paint/Molding/Water leak

13.011.49.38.99.9Interior

10.510.09.911.112.0Transmission

13.417.013.411.313.0HVAC

16.117.714.616.215.3AV system

4,170

0.9

3.27.3

8.6

10.4

15.0

25.7

35.6

16 7

MY'09(3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2 00 8( 8th) 2 00 7( 7t h) 2 00 6( 6 th) 2 00 5( 5t h)

MY'08(3MIS) MY'07(3MIS) MY'06(3MIS) MY'05(3MIS)

TGW- i Scores [ PPH] 180 174 193 180

Noise/Unusual sound 36.6 36.0 39.5 31.5

Engine 31.5 24.7 25.9 27.1

Handling/Steering wheel 18.6 20.7 23.5 18.3

Brakes 11.7 11.7 10.5 11.1

Electrical/Accessory 10.7 10.8 11.4 12.1

Seats/Seatbelt 8.3 9.1 9.9 7.8Tires 3.6 3.7 4.7 2.2

Battery 1.1 1.1 1.7 6.5

Base 5,793 6,666 6,823 6,754


13.011.49.38.99.9Interior

10.510.09.911.112.0Transmission

13.417.013.411.313.0HVAC

16.117.714.616.215.3AV system

4,170

0.9

3.27.3

8.6

10.4

15.0

25.7

35.6

16 7

MY'09(3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2 00 8( 8th) 2 00 7( 7t h) 2 00 6( 6 th) 2 00 5( 5t h)

MY'08(3MIS) MY'07(3MIS) MY'06(3MIS) MY'05(3MIS)

TGW- i Scores [ PPH] 180 174 193 180


Engine 31.5 24.7 25.9 27.1


Brakes 11.7 11.7 10.5 11.1


Seats/Seatbelt 8.3 9.1 9.9 7.8Tires 3.6 3.7 4.7 2.2

Battery 1.1 1.1 1.7 6.5

Base 5,793 6,666 6,823 6,754

[Tab. 3-3] 2005~2009

(Things Gone Wrong - initial Score by Category 2005-2009)

5. Worst 10 (TGW-i Worst 10 Items)

170 10

[Tab. 3-4] . 9.84 PPH

, / /(5.88 PPH),

/(5.72 PPH), (5.68 PPH)

.

Worst 10 /( 1, 2, 3, 8) 4

, ( 4, 7), /( 5, 9)

2 .

Worst 10 9 08 Worst 10 .

.

.

TGW-i Worst 10 Items:

As shown in [Tab. 3-4], the worst ten items (in order of having most problems)

were counted from a total of 170 items that comprise of TGW-i. 'Excessive wind

8/4/2019 White File2009

45/197

3.96(6)3.84 /

(T/M Shifts roughly)6

4.12(5)5.13

(Air from vents smells moldy/stale)5

3.78(8)5.88/ /

(Other Noise/Unusual sound problems)2

3.34

3.38

3.52

3.56

5.68

5.72

9.84

MY'09 (3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 th)

MY'08 (3MIS)

1

(Excessive wind noise)10.91(1)

3 /(Noise/Unusual noise from the lower part of body)

6.42(2)

4 [](Engine lacks power)

4.98(3)

7 / (Engine noise/unusual sound while driving)

4.81(4)

8 /

(Front tires noise/unusual sound when driving)3.88(7)

9 (Loud sound when heaterA/C working)

2.78(17)

10 / (Radio has poor or no reception-AM/FM)

3.53(10)

3.96(6)3.84 /

(T/M Shifts roughly)6

4.12(5)5.13

(Air from vents smells moldy/stale)5

3.78(8)5.88/ /

(Other Noise/Unusual sound problems)2

3.34

3.38

3.52

3.56

5.68

5.72

9.84

MY'09 (3MIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 th)

MY'08 (3MIS)

1

(Excessive wind noise)10.91(1)

3 /(Noise/Unusual noise from the lower part of body)

6.42(2)

4 [](Engine lacks power)

4.98(3)

7 / (Engine noise/unusual sound while driving)

4.81(4)

8 /

(Front tires noise/unusual sound when driving)3.88(7)

9 (Loud sound when heaterA/C working)

2.78(17)

10 / (Radio has poor or no reception-AM/FM)

3.53(10)

* 08

noise' (9.84 PPH) was the most frequently reported, followed by 'Noise/Unusual

sound from defect/problem' (5.88 PPH), 'Noise/Unusual sound from the lower part

of body' (5.72 PPH), and 'Engine lacks power' (5.68 PPH).

Four items from the 'Noise/Unusual sound' category belonged to the worst ten

(ranked 1st, 2nd, 7th and 8th) being the most problematic category. The 'Engine'

(ranked 4th and 7th) and 'Temperature/Ventilation' (ranked 5th and 9th) categories

also included two items each in the worst ten list.

The 9 out of the Worst 10 were already included in 2008 Worst 10. It shows that

the most frequent problems generated from new cars are mostly diehard. Different

from the consumer's expectation, the manufacturers regard them not able to fix or

not such a serious problem.

[Tab. 3-4] 2008~2009 Worst 10 Items

(Things Gone Wrong - initial Worst 10 Items 2008-2009)

8/4/2019 White File2009

46/197

46 Chapter 3

Chapter 4 (TGW-d)

1. (TGW-d Scores by Maker).....50

2. (TGW-d Scores by Vehicle Class).....53

3. (TGW-d Model Ranking).....54

4. (TGW-d Scores by Category).....57

5. Worst 10 (TGW-d Worst 10 Items).....58

8/4/2019 White File2009

47/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 47

Chapter 4 (TGW-d)

1. (TGW-d Scores by Maker)

3 ,

06 (TGW-d:

Things Gone Wrong - durability).

. , 3MIS 3YIS

.

09 439 PPH

02 710 PPH, 05 496 PPH .

[Fig.

4-1].

TGW-d Scores by Maker:

TGW-d measures the number of quality problems experienced by consumers

after an average of three years of ownership, in this study, those who purchased

their car in 2006. The measurement method and score calculation are the same as

those of TGW-i. The only difference between the two lies in the period of

ownership, that being 3 MIS versus 3 YIS.

The 2009 industry average of durability recorded 439 PPH, which is gradually

decreasing from 710 PPH in 2003 and 496 PPH in 2005. Albeit not as much as the

initial quality, there has been continuous quality improvement [Fig. 4-1].

09 404 PPH 417

PPH 1 . 05

. 3

444 PPH , 480 PPH , 558 PPH

. 93 PPH

8/4/2019 White File2009

48/197

48 Chapter 4

4 .

In the 2009 study of TGW-d, Renault Samsung averaged 417 PPH while

Hyundai Motors recorded 404 PPH surpassing Renault Samsung for the top spot.

This was expected when Hyundai first surpassed Renault Samsung in TGW-i in

2005. Ranked 3rd was Kia with 444 PPH followed by Ssangyong with 480 PPH,

and GM Daewoo with 558 PPH. Ssangyong, which had been ranked as the lowest

for past few years, has improved by 93 PPH and surpassed GM Daewoo, which

has shown poor progress, for the 4th spot.

385 PPH 1 .

. 02

710 PPH, 700 PPH

. , 98 - 99 SM5

270 PPH . 8

SM5

.

417 PPH , 404

PPH 2 .

400 PPH

.

.

.

Imported cars on average scored 385 PPH surpassing domestic rank #1

Hyundai.

By taking a look at the trend of TGW-d, the history of Korean automobile

quality can be guessed. The industry average of TGW-d was 710 PPH when the

syndicated study for automobile quality first started in 2002. All the companies

showed over 700 PPH except Renault Samsung. On the contrary, the SM5

8/4/2019 White File2009

49/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 49

manufactured by Samsung Motors in 1998 - 99, which became the object of

TGW-d for Renault Samsung, only had 270 PPH. SM5 shows how excellent the

car was during that time because until now for 8 years, no other company has

developed a car with TGW-d score this low.

Renault Samsung was pushed down to the 2nd spot with 417 PPH by

Hyundai(404PPH) this year while it has kept increasing the number of problems.

Kia and Ssangyong have gradually improved entering the 400 PPH mark and in

reality, Renault Samsung's durability which once appeared to be unshakable is

coming to an end and new rivalries are forming. It is clear Renault Samsung has

drawn competition in the domestic car durability field. Through this multilateral

competition, it is projected to draw improvement in TGW-d.

05

. 385 PPH 1

, 300 PPH .

.

.

.

, .

.

The TGW-d score of imported cars have always been in the high rank but could

not surpass Renault Samsung with an exception in 2005. However, in this year,

imported cars scored 300 PPH which surpassed all the domestic auto makers

including Hyundai ranked 1st with 385 PPH. The rapid progress of imported cars

in TGW-i and TGW-d scores does not seem to be just a one time deal. It is

noticeable because they seem to be a result of possessing strong competitive

power.

The improvement in TGW-d is the greatest gift for consumers. They can use the

car longer, go further and don't need to take care of problems. And customers

won't forget and appreciate the company that offers the gift.

8/4/2019 White File2009

50/197

50 Chapter 4

43 945 749450 649 6

55 8

41 742 1

341

34 1

30 3

40 442 9

49 045 2

46 744 4

45 850 4

54 9576 572

64 2

52 256 4

59 9

66 8

60 657 3

48 0

38 5

25 7

45 7

41 144 6

0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

60 0

70 0

80 0

RSMHMC

KMC

SYM

GMDAT

Year ( Wave)

MY (YIS)2005(5 th )

'02(3)

2006(6 th )

'03(3)

2007(7 th )

'04(3)

2008(8 th )

'05(3)

2009(9 th )

'06(3)

2005(5 th )

'02(3)

2006(6 th )

'03(3)

2007(7 th )

'04(3)

2008(8 th )

'05(3)

2009(9 th )

'06(3)

(PPH)

I nd. Avg.

Import

RSMHMC KMC SYMGMDAT IMPORTRSMRSMHMCHMC KMCKMC SYMSYMGMDATGMDAT IMPORTIMPORT

Better

[Fig. 4-1]

(Things Gone Wrong - durability by Maker)

2. (TGW-d Scores by Vehicle Class)

394 PPH ,

(419 PPH), (424 PPH), (431 PPH) . (533 PPH) (496 PPH) 05

[Tab. 4-1]. 400 PPH ,

500 PPH , 420 -

440 PPH .

, 06 713 PPH

(06 180 PPH). 06

640 PPH . 05 388 PPH

08

.

TGW-d Scores by Vehicle Class:

The best performing vehicle segment for TGW-d was large with 394 PPH,

followed by midsize (419 PPH), sub-midsize (424 PPH), and luxury (431 PPH).

8/4/2019 White File2009

51/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 51

5,387

496

439

431

394

419

424

439

533

43 9

MY'06(3YIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 th) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY'05(3YIS) MY'04(3YIS) MY'03(3YIS) MY'02(3YIS)

I nd. Avg. 457 494 506 496

Mini 540 657 713 586

Small 498 483 522 538

Sub-mid. 461 502 480 456

Midsize 433 408 396 388

Large 366 409 343 413

Luxury 420 545 434 475

SUV 462 518 541 550

MPV 581 586 640 592

Base 5,374 5,790 6,454 10,9735,387

496

439

431

394

419

424

439

533

43 9

MY'06(3YIS)

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007(7 th) 2006(6 t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY'05(3YIS) MY'04(3YIS) MY'03(3YIS) MY'02(3YIS)

I nd. Avg. 457 494 506 496

Mini 540 657 713 586

Small 498 483 522 538

Sub-mid. 461 502 480 456

Midsize 433 408 396 388

Large 366 409 343 413

Luxury 420 545 434 475

SUV 462 518 541 550

MPV 581 586 640 592

Base 5,374 5,790 6,454 10,973

On the other hand, mini (533 PPH) and MPV (496 PPH) have continued to remain

in the bottom ranking since 2005 [Tab. 4-1].

In overall aspects, Large led the way with less than 400 PPH, mini and MPV

which had 500 PPH or higher showed poor progress, and the rest can be put it the

420-440 PPH range.

When seeing the change in TGW-d by vehicle class, mini had continuously

decreased its problems by 180 PPH from 713 PPH in 2006. The MPV had also

steadily decreased its problems from 640 PPH in 2006. After scoring 388 PPH in

2005, the Midsize had increased problems continuously until 2008 and then turned

to show some decrease this year.

[Tab. 4-1]

(Things Gone Wrong - durability by Vehicle Class)

3. (TGW-d Model Ranking)

09 (, 06 ) 60

22 .

09 1 SM3(362 PPH),

Opirus(363 PPH), Avante XD(375 PPH), Trajet XG(378 PPH), Grandeur

(TG)(381 PPH) . 5 1 - 2 3

, 10 6

. , Avante XD 08 12

8/4/2019 White File2009

52/197

52 Chapter 4

[Tab. 4-2].

Opirus Sportage(392 PPH) 7, New Pride(411 PPH) 9

3 Top 10 . 3

Cerato(498 PPH) 16 .

SM3(362 PPH) 1 10

. 02 - 07 1 SM5

New SM5 13 , 09 2 10

. 8 SM7 6

10 . 05 - 07

.

Kyron(471 PPH) 18, Chairman(513 PPH) 20 . All New Matiz(565 PPH) Lacetti(581 PPH)

.

TGW-d Model Ranking:

The 2009 TGW-d ranking was based on 22 models purchased in 2006,

excluding models having less than 60 cases.

SM3 topped the TGW-d ranking this year with 362 PPH followed by

Opirus(363 PPH), Avante XD(375 PPH), Trajet XG(378 PPH), and Grandeur

(TG)(381 PPH). Out of the top five, except for the 1st and 2nd spot, three models

were from Hyundai and 6 out of the top 10 were from Hyundai as well.

Avante XD, in particular, improved its rank by 12 positions, the greatest rank

increase from 2008 [Tab. 4-2].

Beside Opirus, with Sportage (392 PPH) on 7th and New Pride (411 PPH) on

9th, Kia placed total 3 models in the top ten. Cerato (498 PPH) which ranked 3rd

last year had dropped 16 spots being placed in the low rank.

SM3 (362 PPH) recorded ranking 1st and the only model from Renault

Samsung to be placed in the top 10. Although the SM5, which was ranked 1st

from 2002 to 2007, fell to the 13th spot after the model change to New SM5, it

moved up 2 spots ranking close to top 10 in 2009. SM7 which was ranked 8th last

year, fell 6 spots ranking outside of top 10. These results have a relationship with

8/4/2019 White File2009

53/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 53

a. , 2009 30 (Actyon(SUT), Carens )

b. ,

581(25)743(25)649(20)539(18)565All New Matiz21

---545b471Kyron18

--419b417(6)470Tucson17

----604bWinstorm-

524(17)541(14)538(16)531(17)581Lacetti22

---509b395Santa Fe(CM)8

---340b381Grandeur(TG)5

471(9)491(12)518(13)492(15)375Avante XD3

-370b400a403(4)363Opirus2

312(2)372(3)367(2)375(2)362SM31

Rank Model

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007( 7t h) 2006( 6t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY'06(3YIS)

MY'05(3YIS)

MY'04(3YIS)

MY'03(3YIS)

MY'02(3YIS)

I nd. Avg. 439 457 494 506 496

4 Trajet XG 378 436(12) 577(18) 521(13) 555(21)

6 Sonata(NF) 390 431(11) 469(7) 398(4) 383(4)

7 Sportage 392 421(9) 499b - -

- Avante(HD) 407b - - - -

9 New Pride 411 517b - - -

10 Equus 418 247a 503a 434(6) 399(5)

11 New SM5 431 439(13) 339(1) 330(1) 302(1)

12 Lotze Innovation 432 352b - - -

13 Sorento 436 440(14) 517(12) 480(10) 531(19)

14 SM7 451 420(8) 238b - -

- New Carens 460b - - - -

15 Verna(MC) 465 - - - -

16 Morning 466 543(19) 423b - -

- Click 467a 374a 495(8) 544(15) 435(7)

- New Carnival 472a 582a 505(10) 598(17) 626(30)

- Tosca 475b - - - -

19 Cerato 498 393(3) 525(14) 509a -

- Actyon 499a - - - -

20 Chairman 513 568(20) 529a 577a 476(10)

- Grand Carnival 631a - - - -

581(25)743(25)649(20)539(18)565All New Matiz21

---545b471Kyron18

--419b417(6)470Tucson17

----604bWinstorm-

524(17)541(14)538(16)531(17)581Lacetti22

---509b395Santa Fe(CM)8

---340b381Grandeur(TG)5

471(9)491(12)518(13)492(15)375Avante XD3

-370b400a403(4)363Opirus2

312(2)372(3)367(2)375(2)362SM31

Rank Model

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h) 2007( 7t h) 2006( 6t h) 2005(5 t h)

MY'06(3YIS)

MY'05(3YIS)

MY'04(3YIS)

MY'03(3YIS)

MY'02(3YIS)

I nd. Avg. 439 457 494 506 496

4 Trajet XG 378 436(12) 577(18) 521(13) 555(21)

6 Sonata(NF) 390 431(11) 469(7) 398(4) 383(4)

7 Sportage 392 421(9) 499b - -

- Avante(HD) 407b - - - -

9 New Pride 411 517b - - -

10 Equus 418 247a 503a 434(6) 399(5)

11 New SM5 431 439(13) 339(1) 330(1) 302(1)

12 Lotze Innovation 432 352b - - -

13 Sorento 436 440(14) 517(12) 480(10) 531(19)

14 SM7 451 420(8) 238b - -

- New Carens 460b - - - -

15 Verna(MC) 465 - - - -

16 Morning 466 543(19) 423b - -

- Click 467a 374a 495(8) 544(15) 435(7)

- New Carnival 472a 582a 505(10) 598(17) 626(30)

- Tosca 475b - - - -

19 Cerato 498 393(3) 525(14) 509a -

- Actyon 499a - - - -

20 Chairman 513 568(20) 529a 577a 476(10)

- Grand Carnival 631a - - - -

a. Insufficient number of samples(30~59), excluded from the rankingsModels with less than 30 samples are not presented in the list. (eg. Actyon(SUT), Carense, etc.)

b. Launched during the study period, excluded from the rankings

TGW-i instability from 2005 to 2007.

With Kyron (471 PPH) ranked 18th and Chairman (513 PPH) ranked 20th,

Ssangyong remained in the low rank. All New Matiz (565 PPH) and Lacetti (581

PPH) were ranked the lowest.

[Tab. 4-2] 2005~2009

(Things Gone Wrong - durability Model Ranking 2005-2009)

8/4/2019 White File2009

54/197

54 Chapter 4

4. (TGW-d Scores by Category)

/(66.2 PPH)

(66.5 PPH) . (58.3 PPH), /(49.4 PPH)

. /, , /

-

[Tab. 4-3].

08 09 , ,

, '/(4.6 PPH)'

. 05

.

TGW-d Scores by Category:

The most problematic category in TGW-d was 'Noise/Unusual sound' (66.2

PPH) same as in 2008 (66.5 PPH). 'Engine' (58.3 PPH) and 'Handling/Steering

wheel' (49.4 PPH) followed after. These categories were also the most problematic

in TGW-i, indicating that there is a close correlation between initial quality and

durable quality [Tab. 4-3].

When comparing the results of 2008 and 2009, all the categories with the

exception of 'Brakes,' 'Tires,' and 'Battery' have shown improvements. The

'Electrical/Accessory' category made the largest reduction in the number of

problems (4.6 PPH). 'Tire' and 'Battery' categories had continuously shown minor

decreases since 2005 but in this year, the amount of problems have slightly

increased.

8/4/2019 White File2009

55/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 55

31.924.724.521.021.2Tires


35.337.039.736.936.0AV system

5,387

8.3

16.8

20.5

25.0

33.7

34.9

42.1

49.4

58.3

66.2

439

MY'06(3YIS)

2009(9 th) 2 00 8( 8th) 2 00 7( 7th) 2 00 6( 6 th) 2 00 5( 5 th)

MY'05(3YIS)

MY'04(3YIS)

MY'03(3YIS)

MY'02(3YIS)

TGW-d Scores [ PPH] 457 494 506 496


Engine 59.9 65.6 72.4 67.2


HVAC 43.6 46.7 48.8 46.2


Brakes 32.8 31.7 32.9 32.1

Interior 28.5 29.4 31.8 33.9

Seats/Seatbelt 21.3 22.5 23.8 20.0

Transmission 19.0 22.4 21.9 21.3

Battery 8.0 8.8 10.0 15.6

Base 5,374 5,790 6,454 10,973

31.924.724.521.021.2Tires


35.337.039.736.936.0AV system

5,387

8.3

16.8

20.5

25.0

33.7

34.9

42.1

49.4

58.3

66.2

439

MY'06(3YIS)

2009(9 th) 2 00 8( 8th) 2 00 7( 7th) 2 00 6( 6 th) 2 00 5( 5 th)

MY'05(3YIS)

MY'04(3YIS)

MY'03(3YIS)

MY'02(3YIS)

TGW-d Scores [ PPH] 457 494 506 496


Engine 59.9 65.6 72.4 67.2


HVAC 43.6 46.7 48.8 46.2


Brakes 32.8 31.7 32.9 32.1

Interior 28.5 29.4 31.8 33.9

Seats/Seatbelt 21.3 22.5 23.8 20.0

Transmission 19.0 22.4 21.9 21.3

Battery 8.0 8.8 10.0 15.6

Base 5,374 5,790 6,454 10,973

[Tab. 4-3] 2005~2009

(Things Gone Wrong - durability Score by Category 2005-2009)

5. Worst 10 (TGW-d Worst 10 Items)

170 10 [Tab. 4-4] .

09 23.03 PPH, 08 1

.

Worst 10 /( 2, 6, 7) 3, /( 8,

9) 2 . 5

54.40 PPH 10 (47.07%) .

Worst 10 9 08 Worst 10 .

.

. ,

.

/

.

8/4/2019 White File2009

56/197

56 Chapter 4

TGW-d Worst 10 Items:

[Tab. 4-4] demonstrates the worst ten items (in order of having most problems)

of TGW-d from a total of 170 items. The worst item was 'Air from vents smells

moldy/stale' (23.03 PPH) in 2009 and for two consecutive years with almost the

same score.

Three items from the 'Noise/Unusual sound' category belonged to the worst ten

(ranked 2nd, 6th, and 7th). Two items from the 'Handling/Steering wheel' were

also included in the worst ten (ranked 8th and 9th). The sum of these five items

totaled 54.40 PPH, accounting for about the half (47.07%) of the worst ten items.

Nine out of the worst ten items in 2008 remained in this year's worst ten. This

same condition happened in TGW-i. The stable TGW-i score and TGW-d score

mean that the problems are prone to be diehard afterward. In other words, they are

chronic problems which mean that they are hard to fix presently. This suggests the

importance of quality control in the planning and developing stages rather than in

the later stage.

8/4/2019 White File2009

57/197

Chapter 4 TGW-d 57

8.36(10)8.67

(Steering wheel vibrates while driving)8

8.95(6)8.96/ /(Other Noise/Unusual sound problems)

7

8.55(8)9.41 /(Noise/Unusual noise from the lower part of body)

6

9.19(5)10.04

(Unequal tire wear out)5

8.63(7)10.17 // (Radio has poor or no reception-AM/FM)

3

7.48(12)7.86 [](Engine lacks power)

10

9.55(4)8.42

(Vehicle pulls while driving)9

10.18(3)10.07

(Grinding sound(squeak) when braking)4

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h)

MY'06(3YIS) MY'05(3YIS)

1 (Air from vents smells moldy/stale)

23.03 22.69(1)

2

(Excessive wind noise)18.94 17.92(2)

8.36(10)8.67

(Steering wheel vibrates while driving)8

8.95(6)8.96/ /(Other Noise/Unusual sound problems)

7

8.55(8)9.41 /(Noise/Unusual noise from the lower part of body)

6

9.19(5)10.04

(Unequal tire wear out)5

8.63(7)10.17 // (Radio has poor or no reception-AM/FM)

3

7.48(12)7.86 [](Engine lacks power)

10

9.55(4)8.42

(Vehicle pulls while driving)9

10.18(3)10.07

(Grinding sound(squeak) when braking)4

2009(9 t h) 2008(8 t h)

MY'06(3YIS) MY'05(3YIS)

1 (Air from vents smells moldy/stale)

23.03 22.69(1)

Documents

White File2009