Consumer Reports: Most reliable cars and ratings.

[saberz]

Figure'd people would enjoy reading this. Ford is leading, GM gained considerably.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_co...-reliable-cars/

Pretty good read.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Quote from CR: "Honda and Acura are among the top four brands, with their models topping five vehicle categories. But problems with rear brake pads help drop the 4-cylinder Accord and Acura TSX to average."

I don't know the details, but brake pad problem is easy to solve with a new/better pad. Engine or Transmission problems are different thing.

 

[John_K]

And Chrysler still sucks!

John

 

[440Magnum]

Condemner Retreads.... same old same old nonsense.

Why on earth would anyone seriously let something as nonsensical as "problems with rear brake pads" drop a vehicle's desirability??

And how many times do we need to hear the same old saw about "Chrysler vehicles are dated." Yes, the Sebring's a pile. The Caliber was a bad idea from the get-go (trying to replace two cars with one). Get over it, and consider the Grand Cherokee, the full Ram line, the segment-leading LX/LC cars, and the fact that they didn't completely castrate the Wrangler the way Toyota did the Land Cruiser.

 

[mechanicx]

There are a lot of holes in CR's ratings especially on new models but even on older ones too. I honestly would not trust a high rated vehicle to actually fair better over time than an average rated. That highly rated vehicle might be more prone to dropping a transmission, a headgasket or have expensive suspension problems after the warranty expire while the average rated one might get what few issues it has worked out under warranty and motor on problem free for many years and miles.

And that's not even gtting into that there may not be much of any difference between an average and above averae rating,, or the inherent inaccuracies/biases of any consumer reporting.

 

[LS2JSTS]

CR....GIGO


"Our data are based on an annual survey of subscribers to Consumer Reports and ConsumerReports.org....."

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

I owned a '72 Chevy Vega. Every bad car on that list is miles better than that POS.

 

[fdcg27]

CR is just another source of information.
I don't think anyone reagards them as the only realiable source.
Anyone buying any car should consider a range of available information, and might glance at CR.

 

[Sylvatica]

They mention that Ford and GM boosted quality two different ways; Ford actually fixed bugs and improved things, and GM simply dumped some worst-performing dogs which reduced their percentage of junk overall.

I would still never buy either.

 

[Chris142]

Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
I owned a '72 Chevy Vega. Every bad car on that list is miles better than that POS.
The only fix for that engine was a small journal 327 swap

 

[fdcg27]

Never say never.
Both make some pretty good machines.
I would put our late Aerostar's repair record up against any Honda or Mercedes we've ever owned, and we've had six Hondas and four Benzes.
For basic transport, a 'balt or G5 is about as reliable as it gets, as well.
The Corvette will also best many pricier cars, GM parenthood notwithstanding.
Nothing wrong with current GM or Ford products.

 

[John_K]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum


Why on earth would anyone seriously let something as nonsensical as "problems with rear brake pads" drop a vehicle's desirability??



I would if it were a recurring problem that was probably a result of vehicle bad design/defect.

John

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: John_K
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Why on earth would anyone seriously let something as nonsensical as "problems with rear brake pads" drop a vehicle's desirability??

I would if it were a recurring problem that was probably a result of vehicle bad design/defect.

John

If the problem was the rear brake system then it is a serious defect, but the problem was brake pads, it can be fixed with a better aftermarket pads.

 

[warrior]

Originally Posted By: Sylvatica
They mention that Ford and GM boosted quality two different ways; Ford actually fixed bugs and improved things, and GM simply dumped some worst-performing dogs which reduced their percentage of junk overall.

I would still never buy either.


Amen!

 

[subiedriver]

In the '09 CR auto issue, the 2004 Subaru Legacy was a recommended model in used cars, that was a major factor in my buying decision. The car has been great!

Its nice to see that Subaru has maintained a good record of reliability, I'm not surprised.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Sylvatica
They mention that Ford and GM boosted quality two different ways; Ford actually fixed bugs and improved things, and GM simply dumped some worst-performing dogs which reduced their percentage of junk overall.

I would still never buy either.




Why don't you like Ford? Bad memories from 30 years ago?

 

[Nick R]

Here is CNNs article. the Ford flex with the Ecoboost V6 is top in the Large SUV category in reliability.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1010/gallery.consumer_reports_most_reliable/index.html

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Anies
Figure'd people would enjoy reading this. Ford is leading, GM gained considerably.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_co...-reliable-cars/

Pretty good read.


Actually, that's an incorrect citation from the article. Ford is leading among domestic brands. That distinction may be subtle to you, but its an important one to make. You also left out one big caveat on GM that puts your statement in proper context as well:

Quote:

But as a company, GM is still far from tops in reliability.


From my perspective, this is what I find nice to read:

Quote:
Honda and Toyota still dominate in reliability


Of course, since it doesn't agree with some of the opinions held here, it will be dismissed as garbage. But I'll take that over the opinion of most forum members based upon my recent reading of how they assess the merits of different products (there are some exceptions who's opinions I respect, even when they differ from my own).

Mostly I'm just posting because I'm not going to give you the pass others have from posting partial quotes from the article while leaving out the necessary context which paints another picture entirely. You might not realize the difference, but to me your quote and their statements say two very different things.

-Spyder

 

[SteveSRT8]

CR is one of the WORST sources you can get for automotive anything.

Hugely biased.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Condemner Retreads.... same old same old nonsense.

Why on earth would anyone seriously let something as nonsensical as "problems with rear brake pads" drop a vehicle's desirability??

And how many times do we need to hear the same old saw about "Chrysler vehicles are dated." Yes, the Sebring's a pile. The Caliber was a bad idea from the get-go (trying to replace two cars with one). Get over it, and consider the Grand Cherokee, the full Ram line, the segment-leading LX/LC cars, and the fact that they didn't completely castrate the Wrangler the way Toyota did the Land Cruiser.



Not everyone wants to buy a truck. Some folks prefer cars, so they have ZERO interest in what's going on in the RAM or Jeep side of the house.

I drove my BIL's Jeep when I was in Dallas this spring. You couldn't pay me to drive a Jeep everyday. It must be a Jeep thing and I certainly don't understand.

So while I'm happy for folks who like such vehicles that they have a choice, I doubt that's the majority of the market. It's a good chunk. Maybe even good enough to return to profitability.

But I'm far more interested in the car based offerings and there is no reason for someone who wants a sedan that gets close to 40MPGs on the highway to step foot in a Dodge or Chrysler dealership today.