Without this descending into a name calling of certain marques...
We've had discussions recently over the various longer warranties offered by certain makers and during those discussions the word quality was used regularly sometimes referring to the lack of quality.
What exactly is quality when the word is used to describe a car.
|
|
You have been reading "Zen & the art of" &ICMFF head zaps.
|
I think quality is all too frequently mixed up with specification - and as ever motoring journalists are in the vanguard of this mis-understanding.
Quality is simply whether or not something behaves in the way you expect it to.
As an example, despite its low specification, a burger bought from a large fast food chain is much more likely to conform to expectations than a meal at a posh restaurant, and it is therefore the burger which is the higher quality product.
|
>> Quality is simply whether or not something behaves in the way you expect it to.
>>
>>
>> As an example, despite its low specification, a burger bought from a large fast food
>> chain is much more likely to conform to expectations than a meal at a posh
>> restaurant, and it is therefore the burger which is the higher quality product.
Absolute trash.
A low quality burger is one that fails meet expectations in taste, texture and size
A QUALITY burger is one that exceeds your expectations in taste, texture and size.
|
As a fellow Engineer, I would tend to side with Number_Cruncher's perfectly accurate - if somewhat narrow - definition of 'quality'.
In an engineering sense, two products with vastly different specification (and price level) can have a similar level of quality associated with their manufacture.
Of course, the more widespread use of the term 'quality' brings other associations - many of an unquantifiable, personal nature - which makes its definition much more difficult.
N_C - you probably get hot under the collar with popular (mis-)uses of other engineering qualities:
'work' and 'power'
'speed' and 'velocity'
'mass' and 'weight'
etc.
|
>>N_C - you probably get hot under the collar with popular (mis-)uses of other engineering qualities:
Yes! - although I'm doubtlessly guilty of the odd lapse myself!
I find it annoying to read many articles written in motoring magazines which are factually wrong - erring far beyond mere terminological pedantry. As an example, I don't think I've ever read a fully correct magazine explanation of how a spark is created by a contact breaker ignition system.
Then, a rather nasty thought occurs,...
If when I read about a subject where I happen to have some specialist knowledge, I find the text to be factually inaccurate, how much am I being misled in other subject areas where I am very much at the mercy of the "expert" writing the piece.
|
>> What exactly is quality when the word is used to describe a car.
Quality - When only things which are supposed to go bang do so. Everthing else should remain silent, cooperative and look elegant.
|
|
A combination of function and durability. The ability to perform well and for as long as possible.
|
|
BMW 6 cylinder petrol engines.
|
Stu has it just right - and Legacylad gives a fine example of same. It can happen only if a product or component is designed and built to a standard, not down to a price.
That feeling of inbuilt quality is very strong with my nine-year-old BMW Z3, which runs as well as a new car. Both bodywork and mechanicals were built to last, and it shows.
|
A quality car is one which exceeds the expectations. My Panda is very well built for £6500 and I cannot critise the build quality at all, but if it was a £20k car I would say the quality was awful.
On a 20k car not only must it be strong but all the materials need to be exotic to touch. The Mazda 6 for example has always been critised by its quality of plastics even though it is a very solid and good quality car the plastics feel cheap in some areas however the car is also very good value compared to a Mondeo so I think the critism is unfair.
|
>> My Panda is very well built
>> for £6500 and I cannot critise the build quality at all, but if it was
>> a £20k car I would say the quality was awful.
...which ties in with this definition in ISO 900x terms (see last paragraph below), from
www.praxiom.com/iso-definition.htm#Quality
The quality of something can be determined by comparing
a set of inherent characteristics with a set of requirements.
If those inherent characteristics meet all requirements, high
or excellent quality is achieved. If those characteristics do
not meet all requirements, a low or poor level of quality
is achieved.
Quality is, therefore, a question of degree. As a result,
the central quality question is: How well does this set of
inherent characteristics comply with this set of requirements?
In short, the quality of something depends on a set of inherent
characteristics and a set of requirements and how
well the former complies with the latter.
According to this definition, quality is a relative concept.
By linking quality to requirements, ISO 9000 argues that the
quality of something cannot be established in a vacuum.
Quality is always relative to a set of requirements.
|
|
Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.
|
>> As an example, despite its low specification, a burger bought from a large fast food
>> chain is much more likely to conform to expectations than a meal at a posh
>> restaurant, and it is therefore the burger which is the higher quality product.
Many people can make better burgers than McDonald. Then McDonald is a worldwide business? Because they are very good at
1. Selling the burger
2. Providing same uniform standard worldwide
Now by uniform it means burger quality will not vary between shops (to an extent human taste buds won't differentiate). Most fast food chains work in same principle.
Conforming to a uniform standard is not everything of quality. You may buy a better quality burger outside of McDonald.
Quality is nothing but an acceptable standard. It is up to the consumer to define what level of quality s/he wants. Then any product which adheres to that standard is a quality product to him.
For example, we might find Ford or Vauxhall are quality products. Some rich may argue only Bentley or Maybach is quality product.
So, like beauty, quality is on eye of beholders :)
|
>>For example, we might find Ford or Vauxhall are quality products. Some rich may argue only Bentley or Maybach is quality product.
That's a perfect example of confusing qualty and specification.
The Ford and Vauxhall will use machine made and assembled parts, and economies of scale will make these parts statistically much more accurate and reliable than the more bespoke parts fitted to the Bentley and Maybach.
So, despite having a massively superior level of specification, there's no way the Bentley and Maybach can compete on quality.
|
>>>A combination of function and durability. The ability to perform well and for as long as possible.
I think Stu's definition needs something on top to make a true quality car... something Rattle leans towards when he says..
>>>On a 20k car not only must it be strong but all the materials need to be exotic to touch.
The Japanese, and now Korean, makers have been very good at meeting Stu's expectations while making cars with very cheap interiors and doors that shut with a clang. For my view this prevents them being true quality cars.
These tactile qualities I value may just be the icing on an already quality cake but are still very important.
|
>> These tactile qualities I value may just be the icing on an already quality cake
>> but are still very important.
Perhaps there is a tendency to think quality implies (at least some) luxury when it comes to cars?
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 13 May 10 at 07:54
|
There is a balance in the quality argument between the more identifiable 'performing to a certain specified standard' and ' the best possible without thought of cost'.
An ultra reliable Hyundai i10 may be of a better quality than a averagely reliable Rolls Royce, but we all know that the RR has a higher standard of materials, fixtures and fittings and will probably be around 30 years after the Hyundai has been scrapped.
Which is of higher quality - a Chippendale or Sheraton dining table or one from Ikea?
|
>> >>
>> Quality is always relative to a set of requirements.
>>
That can't be true. That would mean that if you specify a product of very high quality, and it matches the specification, it would by definition cease to be quality because it would not be better relative to the requirements.
|
>> That can't be true. That would mean that if you specify a product of very
>> high quality, and it matches the specification
...but 'very high quality' by definition (I think) implies it exceeds the specification - it can't just match it.
|
>> >>
>>
>> ...but 'very high quality' by definition (I think) implies it exceeds the specification - it
>> can't just match it.
>>
Surely not. For arduous working conditions I might specify the highest quality steel. Not any old mild steel, certainly not Britsh Leyland 1970 grade steel, not even bog standard ordinary stainless steel, but the very highest grade stainless obtainable.
Then when the product arrives, and entirely meets my specification. It surely remains high quality? I don't suddenly decide it can't be high quality any more because it doesn't exceed the specification?
|
>> >> ...but 'very high quality' by definition (I think) implies it exceeds the specification -
>> >> it can't just match it.
>>
>> Then when the product arrives, and entirely meets my specification. It surely remains high quality?
I see what you're getting at, but TBH you probably need to ask someone who know's what they're talking about :-)
|
Quality isn't relative, it's absolute. ISO 9000 and the like have rather blurred this definition but they tend to measure consistency of adherence to a self-defined standard rather than absolute quality. If the ISO 9000 manual says that the staff will wear pink shirts on Wednesdays then, provided they do, the organization has passed that part of the 'quality' test.
This also makes the McDonalds case above a bad example. A mass-market hamburger may be consistent in the sense that it's much the same whether you buy it in Harwich or, erm, Hamburg, but that doesn't make it a higher-quality product from one made in my kitchen from locally-produced, grass-fed beef and home-grown salad. The quality, such as it is, is in the design of a process that allows unskilled hands to turn cheap ingredients into a consistent product.
McDonalds - or Hyundai - may argue that their processes are of a quality that allows them to produce a consistent product at a low price. But that doesn't make the product a high-quality product if it's made from poor-quality materials - any more than a 1970s Jaguar could be lifted by the quality of the leather in its seats above the shoddy workmanship that put it together. Quality is in everything - design, materials and processes - and the more you have in each, the better the quality of the end result, but the more it is likely to cost.
|
>>but that doesn't make it a higher-quality product from one made in my kitchen from locally-produced, grass-fed beef and home-grown salad.
Aain, quality and specification are being confused.
|
OK, going back to the original question:
"What exactly is quality when the word is used to describe a car?"
Quality means how good something is.
There is high quality, low quality, and every grade in between.
Sometimes low quality is good enough, sometimes a customer wants higher quality.
Specification describes how closely a customer gets what he was asking for.
If a product meets the specification, the customer is presumably satisfied. But that doesn't change the quality of the product - it remains high or low or whatever was asked for.
Losely, suppliers describe their products as "quality", which they cunningly know people will assume to mean "high quality". But if all it means is "a quality", then the term becomes meaningless.
|
Quality means how good something is.
>> There is high quality, low quality, and every grade in between.
I agree - Quality is not the same as value for money. A Fiat Panda and a McDonalds hamburger may both be value for money but no way could you describe a Panda as a high quality car or a Mcdonalds Big Mac as a high quality meal in any sense that is commonly understood.
Quality is an absolute term
|
>Again, quality and specification are being confused.
Not by me. Quality is intrinsic: once a substance or product is complete its quality can't be changed. I can make a high-quality hamburger by specifying high-quality ingredients and then cooking and assembling them with skill and care. And the whole can be no greater than the sum of its parts, so any slip in quality along the line will be reflected in the finished product. The animal may have been perfectly raised and fed, but if it's wrongly treated at slaughter, or the carcass isn't hung properly, the quality of the meat will suffer; and all this trouble will go to waste if I drop my top-drawer ingredients on the kitchen floor.
Where's the confusion?
|
>>
>>
>> Where's the confusion?
>>
>>
None, I agree with you.
The only way quality could change after the product has been made is if we retrospectively revisited it in the light of later changes in taste or education.
So I might once have thought McD's were the acme of haute cuisine, but now I realise it is pig swill.
|
NC's definition makes sense to me once i got my head around it and now i see Will & Cliff are confusing specification for quality.
The ISO guys seem to have it nailed.
The specification of the home made burger is much higher -- especially in taste. The home made burger will taste 10 times better than the mcd's one. However each one will look different, the top may be sitting at a jaunty angle etc. so some specifications may be to a lower standard than the mcd's one.
When one of the specifications is for uniform presentation, then the home made burger, higher specification in taste terms though it is, will be of a lesser quality. If the requirement is for taste then the home made burger is higher quality.
|
ISO 9000 has defined "quality" as "conforming to specification".
This doesn't really fit with any of the Collins dictionary definitions. Collins gives inter alia:
1. A distinguishing characteristic
4. Degree or standard of excellence, especially a high standard
Clearly definition 4 shows that a Rolls Royce is of higher quality than a Fiesta.
Whilst NC clearly argues that ISO9000 shows exactly the opposite.
Doesn't seem much point continuing this discussion when ISO has stolen a word that is often used to mean "high standard" and rebranded it to mean "conforming to required standard".
|
I'd put that the other way round, Craig. The quality is there whether you need it or not. To take another example, I can go to Harrods and buy beautiful cedarwood shirt hangers for £20 apiece; or I can (well, could) go to Woolworths and buy five made of something unspecified but brown and woody, for £2. The specification in each case is the same: to keep my shirt off the wardrobe floor, but one hanger is still of vastly better quality than the other.
I'll leave you to guess which option I took.
};---)
|
>>The specification in each case is the same: to keep my shirt off the wardrobe floor, but one hanger is still of vastly better quality than the other.
No.
The function in each case is the same.
The specification is not the same, the Harrods coat hanger is the higher specification, as is its cost.
However well each coat hanger type conforms to its specification isn't easy to say, and it's entirely possible that the cheap hanger is more likely to be a conforming item.
|
The definition I found worked best for "quality" was "fit for purpose" (this came from the APM PRINCE2 recommendation).
Does the item meet the required quality standards?
then reads
Is the item fit for purpose?
A £20,000 chair is fit for purpose, therefore has the required quality, but does not necessarily represent best value.
A £2 chair might be fit for purpose (which must include durability) and therefore might represent excellent value.
The trouble is that journalists have thrown quality together to mean lots of things. I find the nonsense of "quality is poor as it lacks soft touch dashboard materials" particularly galling. Hard plastics are aesthetics, not the level of "fitness for purpose" (quality).
|
>> The trouble is that journalists have thrown quality together to mean lots of things. I
>> find the nonsense of "quality is poor as it lacks soft touch dashboard materials" particularly
>> galling. Hard plastics are aesthetics, not the level of "fitness for purpose" (quality).
Presumably this was in a cheap car, as wouldn't 'fitness for purpose' in an expensive car include good aesthetics? Ie. purpose becomes 'get me from A to B, and feel nice to be in as well'.
|
When their tailor produces a roll of fabric and invites them to "feel the quality" some people here must be totally baffled by the offer.
"Feel the specification" would be so much clearer and enticing.
|
|
In motoring terms I would have expected a high degree of quality in any car costing me 25k or more. Although having spent some years among the folk on HJ / C4P, I realise that may have been a tad optimistic.
|
>> The trouble is that journalists have thrown quality together to mean lots of things. I
>> find the nonsense of "quality is poor as it lacks soft touch dashboard materials" particularly
>> galling. Hard plastics are aesthetics, not the level of "fitness for purpose" (quality).
>>Presumably this was in a cheap car, as wouldn't 'fitness for purpose' in an expensive car >>include good aesthetics? Ie. purpose becomes 'get me from A to B, and feel nice to be in >>as well'.
I don't think it should be personally. Does the dash plastic affect the mechanical integrity or performance of the car?
It is all subjective of course, which is part of the problem when you try to compare these things. I remember a few years ago a car mag scored the 5 star Euro NCAP Saab a 4 * but the 4 star Euro NCAP Merc a 5 * for safety.... ?
Perhaps we have a new thread that suggests what a car should be rated on?
|
>> >> Presumably this was in a cheap car, as wouldn't 'fitness for purpose' in an expensive
>> >> car include good aesthetics? Ie. purpose becomes 'get me from A to B, and feel
>> >> nice to be in as well'.
>>
>> I don't think it should be personally. Does the dash plastic affect the mechanical integrity
>> or performance of the car?
No - but I'm saying the purpose the car must be fit for can be more than that, depending on your price range, and to some extent the 'type' of car. Eg. the purpose of a 'luxury' car is different to that of a 'sports' car.
|
>> I'll leave you to guess which option I took.
>> };---)
>>
So, where do you go now?
};---)
|
>>So, where do you go now?
The Market, I'll bet...
:)
|
|
Now that Harrods is up for sale, you mean?
|
What indeed? Even more specific concepts like 'well designed' and 'well made from the best materials' mean different things to different people and are open to argument. But of course 'quality' includes both of those, and the intangibles of 'image'.
So a quality product is one that is well designed and well made from the best materials, or that is thought to be so. It tends to coincide with 'expensive', but doesn't always.
The attempt to separate quality and specification is doomed to failure for general, non-technical use. It is obvious to the average punter that specification is part of quality. Claiming that they are entirely distinct can only confuse people.
|
What is quality? -
Keira Knightley
|
|
Oh come on Humph, what about Myleene Klass? She plays piano.
|
|
Rubbish with a sword though.
|
Kemi from Channel 5's Milkshake?
Total quality...
|
|
Not in the same league as Keira.
|
Pretty cool surname I have to admit...
Might change mine.
|
Quality is often indefinable, no matter what it applies to, but is immediately obvious to those who cherish such an attribute.
|
Well a lot of thoughts here, touching briefly on quality of the female form then the Katherine's (Zeta Jones and Jenkins) take some beating, go back a little further for the likes of Diana Rigg and the many finishing schooled ladies of that time.
Looking the part doesn't always do it, pleasant voice, deportment etc are important to the overall air of quality.
Anyway back to quality in cars.
I regard a car as quality if it performs it's function well overall for an extended period of time, if the interior falls apart or it suffers premature failure of components then all the expensive fitments in the world won't convince me of quality regardless of how much the thing costs or how long the spec list.
Price really doesn't come into it, if i spend 7 grand on a new car i don't expect deep pile carpets and walnut veneer dasboard, i do expect that car to be totally reliable comfortable and durable for a reasonable life term...if it does that then it's a reasonable quality car imo.
If i spend 30 grand and the Wilton, walnut and Connolly leather stay prime and the rest of the car performs as well for that same life term then it too is a quality car, but no better quality than the 7 grander as my expectations of luxury were lower.
Some very expensive cars do have a high failure rate for mechanical and electronic parts, i can't regard them as quality if the most beautiful interiors and fantastic performance are marred by failure of other parts, often the toys but increasingly often important mechanical parts and electronics.
I suppose then every part of a car has to perfrom well and be durable to convince me of quality.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 14 May 10 at 18:37
|
"I suppose then every part of a car has to perform well and be durable to convince me of quality."
Absolutely, GB - I've been reading through this thread hoping someone would manage to sum it up. It needs to be the parts you can't see as well as those you can.
I remember looking inside the boot of the Jaguar X-type when it was newly-announced. The boot carpet would have disgraced a Ford Ka, and underneath it (where I wasn't supposed to look) there were all manner of poorly-finished welds and rough edges.
True quality - in any product - is more then skin-deep. It has to come from the inside out - inbuilt in fact.
|
> True quality- in any product - is more than skin-deep. It has to come from the inside out - inbuilt in fact.
Like a 1964-72 Mercedes 600 perhaps?
|
Alas, the english language has no specification, nor can it be defined in engineering terms. Therefore, with respect to luxury consumer goods like cars, the term quality means many things to many people.
It is inappropriate and inaccurate to try and restrict the use of english to meet enginnering standards. language is not mathmatics.
|
What is quality? - FotheringtonTomas
