I mentioned both surveys; the VDS in my first post and the IQS in the second. The issues with both studies' methodology is similar, with the main difference being that many of the more moronic "problems" are weeded out after the three years with the more notorious cars theoretically being brought to light.
Here's the report to go along with that study, with one specific issue bolded:
The move to smaller engines has taken off in the past few years, with many more vehicles with a four as the base, or now the only available engine. The industry shift is being made to boost fuel economy to meet federal regulations tightening to an average 54.5 mpg in 2026. But, says Power, it means automakers have saddled drivers with "engine hesitation, rough transmission shifts and lack of power."
That could mean how there is a rash of downsized turbo drivetrains spectacularly exploding like so many Turbo-K engines or Saab transmissions, or that people simply don't like/aren't used to downsized turbocharged engines with more efficient DCT or CVT gearboxes because they don't provide the effortless, sleepy performance of a big V6 and a traditional slushbox; or anything in between.
Now compare that
with the report of the IQS findings from the same year as these cars, where theories were being proposed for why customers didn't like things in the initial period:
Lest you think that these problems are primarily electronic in nature, the new Fiesta has also been cited for issues with its PowerShift dual-clutch automatic. There seems to be little evidence that this transmission has any mechanical problems, but customers are complaining about its shift quality.
The PowerShift transmission is not as smooth as a conventional automatic equipped with a torque converter. Might the customer complaints be instigated by a transmission that doesn’t feel like a conventional automatic? “I can’t go into customers’ minds,” says Festekjian.
Then imagine how many times in modern car reviews that poorer CVTs are described as being like a slushbox with a slipping torque converter; then multiply that number by how infinitely less knowledgeable your typical car owner is compared to a car magazine editor. How many people who bought a 2011 Jeep Compass (as an single year example coinciding with when it was refreshed to look like a Grand Cherokee to a massive increase in sales) thought that there was something wrong with the car, and that fool at the dealership could never manage to make it shift "right"?
Another example. Let's say you own a Cadillac you bought new in the mid-90s. Your Cadillac has the misfortune of being a Northstar. Or... is a Catera. Or to make it simpler, any Cadillac made that wasn't the Fleetwood. The stories of the Catera's woes for its entire life are infamous; and the original Euro Seville went from "the car that will save Cadillac" to "did they make this thing out of Balsa?" right around the time they changed the cooling system and the car started popping head gaskets so fast it would make the Neon say "hey, slow down guy". This also sidesteps the constant electrical problems that plagued these cars as GM targeted putting more toys in their cars then even the most fully loaded Lexus before fully grasping how well they should work. So naturally, Cadillac
should end up near the bottom; with problems as severe and frequent as any Land Rover. I can't find 1995 or 1999 model year information, but they changed the testing criteria for the reporting dates in 1999 before ultimately switching to a 3-year ranking in 2003, so it may not exist; but here is the rest of it:
1994 models put Cadillac in second.
1996 models put Cadillac in eleventh, with a 50 percent increase in problems, but still way ahead of the industry average (which also shot up in tune with the survey's first redesign. The OBD-II changeover probably didn't help either.).
1997 models put Cadillac in eighth, but virtually tied with Honda and Toyota. Problem reports go tumbling back down, coinciding with... um... the Catera's introduction? The death of the bulletproof Fleetwood?
1998 models put Cadillac in eighth, again virtually tied with Toyota.
2000 models put Cadillac in seventh, just behind Toyota and ahead of Honda, probably coinciding with the redesign of the Northstar engine.
2001 models put Cadillac in fifth, shooting back up the rankings ahead of Toyota and Honda; probably coinciding with the euthanization of the Catera.
And you can't say that luxury cars are immune to these sorts of surveys, because watch in awe as the post-W124 Mercedes models causes that brand's reputation to fall off the face of the earth over the same time period. I'm not sure anyone can say with a straight face that anything Mercedes put out in that period was worse than the
Catera, or that any of their cars ended up with worse gremlins than a 90s Eldorado; yet Mercedes was hit like a hammer while Cadillac mainly stayed stagnant.
...wait, nevermind. PERCEPTION of quality not actual quality. 
