Build Quality

Perhaps the Club might consider producing an article explaining how quality ratings are arrived at and possibly highlighting the quality assurance and other audit processes which manufacturers utilise. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm with you on all your comments. But too many folk hand in glove and back scratching..........

The only way there's likely to be any improvement is when eople don't buy them. Follow up appears awful too. 

Quality is a puzzling one as it depends on whether it is judging it as a motorhome having shortcomings or judging it in comparison to motorhome costing twice as much. The first is correct but the second is pointless. 

David

Quality?…………..🤔

Well designed and engineered

Good quality fixtures and fittings

Fit for purpose

Robust under daily living conditions

Longevity of fixtures and fittings

Doesn't require endless weeks out of use to fix trivial snags

Backed by an excellent after sales network and quick problem resolution.

The post is about build quality. That means it is all about the first of your two options and not at all anything to do with the second. I would not expect build quality to be poor simply because I bought a Ford Fiesta instead of a Ford Mustang.

On the other hand, the overall quality of fixtures, appliances, furnishings, innovation etc., I would expect to be higher in the more expensive van. That is a different type of quality. 

On the OP specifically, I did not see the article referred to, but perhaps the 80% award for build quality was an arbitrary percentage such as tends to be given for a range of criteria when reviewing a product. So, for example, in the case of a motorhome, perhaps, things like: performance, fuel consumption, living space, equipment, build quality, etc.

If that is so, and I accept I am making assumptions here, then such a percentage would not be based on anything specific and I would not then try to conclude that the van has been built 80% well and 20% not so well. Of course, no one would be happy with that.

The review in question (and it may be a standard CAMC format) rated the vehicle for 5 criteria called, "Build Quality", "Driving", "Daytime" ,"Night-Time", "Kitchen", "Washroom" and "Details" and then produced an overall score of 77% being a simple average of the individual scores without any weighting. That in in itself  may not be unreasonable because different purchasers will have different priorities but the 80% I referred to was exclusively the "Build Quality" bit. (other scores were slightly higher or slightly lower). What I am trying to get at is how the build quality score is arrived at and to pose questions about why it is so low and whether that should be acceptable. 

+1👍🏻. I personally have stopped folk who own ‘things’ I am considering buying to get real world feed back. I’ve been disenchanted by some ‘things’ getting rave reviews from some quarters only to find the reviewer has been sponsored by the reviewed company. That is a scam👎🏻

Firstly, I‘m not sure how you can quantify build quality using a percentage. Is 100% a hunk of granite?

I feel that there has been a general decline in build quality in caravans and Mohomes over the last 30 years or so. I‘m talking about materials getting thinner and more flimsy; cupboard doors just don’t operate with the same”heft” as they used to, and everything used to feel less likely to break. Manufacturers are under immense pressure to cram more and more stuff into their products by demand of the consumer, and they have to be mindful of the gross weight of vehicle while also making consideration for usable payload. 
Modern vans look nice and have incredible tech installed in them, but in my humble opinion, they really don’t make them like they used to.