Consumer Reports 2011 Predicted Reliability

[PricklyPete]

Much of the same...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/26/2010-consumer-reports-reliability-scores/

Although my beloved Audi took a nice dive this year...although the 4 cylinder A4 seems to be the most reliable model in their stable.

Gotta think the recent issues with the HPFP definitely played into the BMW score.

Kind of surprised that Scion is at the top...thought it regularly did worse in these polls than the normal Toyota/Lexus brands.

I really think the funny one is Volkswagen...a perennial loser that seems to be being pulled down even further by a rebadged Dodge. Marriage made in heaven.

 

[Vette73]

CR "survey" is junk.

It ONLY surveys those that pay them, subscribe. So it is more an internal customer group think survey then anything. That and I could have 10 things go wrong with my car but if I still think its a great car that is how I will fill the survey out CR does not check on the data so my POS lists as a very good car.

My SiL loves her audi. Yet I have had to fix it about a dozen times and the dealer tried to charge her $1000 for something they should know was a simple $10 fix. Yet her survey card would only say great things about Audi.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont trust their numbers on past reliability. Why the hell would I care about their predictions?

I used to trust them for everything, but now I prefer information from more specialized sources that havent proved themselves to be full of crap.

Although I wont deny that American brands have made massive improvements over the years. Of course, if you have no place to go but up.........

 

[PricklyPete]

CR "survey" is junk.

It ONLY surveys those that pay them, subscribe. So it is more an internal customer group think survey then anything.

It's a survey with a limited pool. I agree that it is not the definitive source...but I also would disagree that it is "junk". It is another tool to be used along with other tools like JD Power and True Delta among others.

 

[Vette73]

It's a survey with a limited pool. I agree that it is not the definitive source...but I also would disagree that it is "junk". It is another tool to be used along with other tools like JD Power and True Delta among others.

It is junk. CR does not say how many "survey" cards they get back before they think it is enough. They also don’t list average age, sex %, etc... If I came out with a study that said cigarettes are not addictive and don’t cause cancer but I won’t tell you how I got to that point would you trust it? Then why trust CR when you know how they get some of the data and its already flawed just on that information.

So this is a small subset of people that pay for CR and ask their opinion about cars. It should not be pushed around news outlets like it is a good scientific study when it is just a small internal group think survey.

Problem is journalistic integrity has taken such a crap turn that people will believe things like this; as good reporting is dead.

 

[MrMatt]

It is junk. CR does not say how many "survey" cards they get back before they think it is enough. They also don’t list average age, sex %, etc... If I came out with a study that said cigarettes are not addictive and don’t cause cancer but I won’t tell you how I got to that point would you trust it? Then why trust CR when you know how they get some of the data and its already flawed just on that information.

So this is a small subset of people that pay for CR and ask their opinion about cars. It should not be pushed around news outlets like it is a good scientific study when it is just a small internal group think survey.

Problem is journalistic integrity has taken such a crap turn that people will believe things like this; as good reporting is dead.

Have you seen a CR questionnaire ever? They specifically ask if you've had actual repair incidents. It's not asking "So do you wub your Audi?" or whatever.

 

[Vette73]

Have you seen a CR questionnaire ever? They specifically ask if you've had actual repair incidents. It's not asking "So do you wub your Audi?" or whatever.

And what is a repair? My SiL thinks when I replaced her coils that was not a repair but "upkeep". i.e. nothing more than a oil change as I was able to fix it in 1 day and cost less than $100.

AGAIN its an internal survey of a small group that has 1 thing in common.

 

[ShawnD1]

Predicted reliability? wtf is that? They're using psychic powers to predict which cars are going to screw up?

I trust the dependability surveys because law of averages says that if you take enough samples, it should balance out the retards. For every person thinking their Honda Civic is broken because the engine slow down when put into drive (someone actually wrote that on edmunds), there will also be someone thinking it's a reliable car after the thing dies for no reason and cannot be fixed.
When one average is significantly higher than another, I think that means something.

 

[PricklyPete]

I can see the ATG loves the Consumer Reports.

 

[Vette73]

I can see the ATG loves the Consumer Reports.

CR use to have its place. But with the internet I can find people that owned it in the real world and see if the way they used it was correct and if there was a problem.

i.e. when Toyota had sludge issues. CR ranked them great. Yet owners kept having the same problem in differant states, climates, etc...

Let alone CR has shown its Bias many times in auto reviews. They have said how 1 car was good for its price but another used cheap stuff, yet they were the same car outside a badge chnage.

Heres a old one but good read about CR and why they are flawed...
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

"They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura."

http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php

 

[Pulsar]

It's a survey with a limited pool. I agree that it is not the definitive source...but I also would disagree that it is "junk". It is another tool to be used along with other tools like JD Power and True Delta among others.

The so-called review is garbage. It's a bunch of non-objective qualitative bullshit that is about perception rather than fact.

CR is great in some cases. When they run head-to-head comparisons amoung 20 brands of vacuum cleaners and actually measure things like suction power, degradation of perfomance as filter is plugged, they are doing the public a service.

When they go out and do a small group survey of their subscribers and don't normalize for location, age, sex, etc etc etc etc etc..... they're doing a disservice and perpetuating myth.

 

[thescreensavers]

Yep CR is crap.

03-06 g35 sedan had different reliability ratings between the years on the engine and traanny. Same engine and tranny pretty much.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Yep CR is crap.

03-06 g35 sedan had different reliability ratings between the years on the engine and traanny. Same engine and tranny pretty much.

So? Ratings are always going to fluctuate as hardware ages, or the model year gradually passes from original owner to subsequent owners.

 

[ElFenix]

So? Ratings are always going to fluctuate as hardware ages, or the model year gradually passes from original owner to subsequent owners.

not to mention there can be running changes made to the components as real world information is learned.

that said i'm under the impression that the G35s have been very reliable.

 

[ShawnD1]

Heres a old one but good read about CR and why they are flawed...
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

"They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura."

http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php

Even though the first link is written by Chrysler fanboys and states ridiculous things that only a fanboy would do, it's still a nice article. Here are some quotes:

CR survey may over/understate the reliability of certain cars because the people that own them are not homogeneous. ... many people will have a subconscious need to justify their purchase of a Japanese auto over of a domestic one, and they could do this by believing superior reliability is the reason they bought it. Because of cognitive dissonance, they would tend to overlook or downplay anything that would attack this mind-set. We do see many people who vehemently defend Japan's cars' reliability and smear that of others.

That certainly is true. My parents had 2 GM cars which would chew through alternators but otherwise had no issues for almost 20 years. Apparently those cars were bad. They now own 2 Nissans. One of them had some plastic shit fall off the front bottom of the car and the weather stripping came off one of the doors within the first 3 years of owning the car. Still, those are "good" cars. Um. ok....

 

[theeedude]

WRX is a disappointment. Test drove one, seemed like a fun and practical car.

 

[CraigRT]

Even though the first link is written by Chrysler fanboys and states ridiculous things that only a fanboy would do, it's still a nice article. Here are some quotes:


That certainly is true. My parents had 2 GM cars which would chew through alternators but otherwise had no issues for almost 20 years. Apparently those cars were bad. They now own 2 Nissans. One of them had some plastic shit fall off the front bottom of the car and the weather stripping came off one of the doors within the first 3 years of owning the car. Still, those are "good" cars. Um. ok....

Sounds like no real problems to me...
I consider a lot of nominal repairs like that just general stuff.
Engine tick, exhaust, suspension issues, can be bad issues on relatively new cars.

The airdam or a splash shield falling off could have even been caused by the driver, and not at all the car's fault. Weatherstrip you can just put back in place...

GM's are well known to have wonky charging systems.. My folks old Celebrity also chewed through alternators.

 

[thescreensavers]

So? Ratings are always going to fluctuate as hardware ages, or the model year gradually passes from original owner to subsequent owners.

Right, but to say one year is better then the other when the engine and tranny stay the same? Like 03/04 had avg then 05 was good then 06 was avg. That boggles my mind.

not to mention there can be running changes made to the components as real world information is learned.

that said i'm under the impression that the G35s have been very reliable.

The 03/04s had a Belt driven Fan, and the Manual tranny changed in 05 to a diffrent revision. And the Shift Logic in the AT was changed in 05 as well.

Thats all the differences I know of. Other then the manual tranny changing its pretty much stayed the same.

 

[ShawnD1]

Right, but to say one year is better then the other when the engine and tranny stay the same? Like 03/04 had avg then 05 was good then 06 was avg. That boggles my mind.

Consumer Reports and JD power rate cars against other cars of the same year. If you compared some random Chrysler of today against the average of 40 years ago, you'd say the Chrysler made today is the best car ever and far above average. If you compared it against today's cars, you'd say the Chrysler is the worst piece of shit ever even though it's the exact same car. The ratings can change year to year when other cars are getting better but this one particular car is not.


One thing mentioned in that Chrysler fanboy article was that the reliability rating of a car can radically change based on what the maintenance schedule is. As someone who knows nothing about cars, I can say that is absolutely true. My last car a 2006 Honda Civic, and that thing explicitly said when to change the oil. You don't even need to look at the manual or write anything down. It has a percentage counter on it and it beeps or has a light or something every time you start the car once it's below 20% oil life. After you change the oil, reset the counter and there ya go. It also had a "B1" maintenance schedule which tells you to check various hoses, brakes, fluids, etc. If you can't do it yourself, you can take the car to dealer and have them do it. While doing that inspection, you or they might find some shit that's wrong with your car and you can get it fixed before it breaks.

My current car is a 2010 Corolla and it doesn't have any of that. There is no computer telling me to change the oil or to check fluids. The only way I know how many miles it was since the last change is because I keep the oil distance as the second trip counter (first counter is for last gasoline fill). If you're lazier than me and you don't even keep track of it, you might end up forgetting about the oil for a good year or so.


But all that said, having the car explicitly tell you when to fix it really is one valid measure of reliability. If the car tells you to fix it before it breaks, then it will always be reliable and never leave you stranded. If every fix only happens after the car dies and leaves you stranded, then that's horrible reliability. You can't rely on the car if you don't know it's about to break and you don't know you're supposed to replace things!

 

[Fenixgoon]

the CR survey is worthless. they put the 2011 V6 camaro vs the 2011 V6 mustang.

predicted reliability for 2011 camaro: vehicle too new
predicted reliability for 2011 mustang: good/excellent (cant remember which)

now HTF do they pull that off, when everything that counts for the mustang has been overhauled for 2011?

they are full of shit.

 

[LTC8K6]

the CR survey is worthless. they put the 2011 V6 camaro vs the 2011 V6 mustang.

predicted reliability for 2011 camaro: vehicle too new
predicted reliability for 2011 mustang: good/excellent (cant remember which)

now HTF do they pull that off, when everything that counts for the mustang has been overhauled for 2011?

they are full of shit.

Has the 2011 Stang been in consumer's hands longer vs the 2011 Camaro? I think so.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Has the 2011 Stang been in consumer's hands longer vs the 2011 Camaro? I think so.

but the camaro has been out since 2010 with few/little changes to 2011 AFAIK (same engine and powertrain), and the mustang is literally all new for 2011. how do you say the camaro doesn't have enough data, but the mustang can be given a reliability rating?

 

[TraumaRN]

but the camaro has been out since 2010 with few/little changes to 2011 AFAIK (same engine and powertrain), and the mustang is literally all new for 2011. how do you say the camaro doesn't have enough data, but the mustang can be given a reliability rating?

The one I was most confused about the was the Toyota Tundra getting best in class reliability, I thought that Toyota was having all kinds of issues with those??

CR is just crap research anyways. I was taught in all my research classes if a researcher does not publish how/who/what/where the data was obtained then not to trust it further then you can spit.

On the flip side, my car was rated #1 Family Car(Fusion Hybrid) And I've had mine for over a year and a half, it was actually made during the first month of production and so far no problems besides an incident with a shopping cart. Unless a burned out tail light after 1.5 years counts as unreliable.

Which begs the question, would guys consider a burned out taillight as a sign of being unreliable? Would you consider it a repair?

I say no on both accounts, and figure it's part of routine maintenance.

 

[ShawnD1]

Which begs the question, would guys consider a burned out taillight as a sign of being unreliable? Would you consider it a repair?

I say no on both accounts, and figure it's part of routine maintenance.

It should be counted as maintenance. Presumably every car should have the same burning out frequency. If one burns out after a year, and lots of people are experiencing this, then that really is a sign of low quality. That's probably not the case and it's just a bulb randomly burning out 🙂


What they should really do is normalize the fuckups to cost. If the light burns out, that counts as 1 maintenance and maybe $20 or whatever. If a vehicle's transmission totally screws up, that too should count as 1 mistake and count hwoever many thousands that costs to fix. in the end you just get a number value. You could say "well on average the cost of fixing a honda civic is slightly lower than that of a toyota corolla by about x% while the ford fusion is..." etc. Just telling me how many things broke tells me almost nothing. A light bulb costs nothing, but a broken transmission or replacing the exhaust system will financially destroy anyone.

 

[Vette73]

The one I was most confused about the was the Toyota Tundra getting best in class reliability, I thought that Toyota was having all kinds of issues with those??

CR is just crap research anyways. I was taught in all my research classes if a researcher does not publish how/who/what/where the data was obtained then not to trust it further then you can spit.

On the flip side, my car was rated #1 Family Car(Fusion Hybrid) And I've had mine for over a year and a half, it was actually made during the first month of production and so far no problems besides an incident with a shopping cart. Unless a burned out tail light after 1.5 years counts as unreliable.

Which begs the question, would guys consider a burned out taillight as a sign of being unreliable? Would you consider it a repair?

I say no on both accounts, and figure it's part of routine maintenance.