Consumer Reports: Most reliable cars and ratings.

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
CR is one of the WORST sources you can get for automotive anything.

Hugely biased.


And nobody here is biased eh.

I'll take the CR owner satisfaction survey over the opinions held of automakers among those who've never owned anything by the brand, or tarnishes the entire brand based on one experience, any day of the week. And twice on Sunday.

Funny how the first couple pages people were commenting on how good was to see brand x doing so & so etc, based on CR, but then when the correction is made to the OPs post to make it accurately reflect what CR has to say, the very next post is (as predicted) a statement about their "huge bias" (in caps no less) - even though its based on what OWNERS themselves reported.

Give me a break Steve. You don't like it because what they are printing doesn't correspond to your own views - that's why they're 'biased' (and hugely no less).

Too bad the actual OWNER SATISFACTION survey its based on doesn't correspond with your bias and that of other members - as the recent Toyota thread is proof of, while in fact they and Honda are still tops for reliability.

GM, while improving, 'still has a long way to go.' Ford, while tops in the market, is only tops in the domestic market that consists of GM, Ford, and Chrysler; and given Fiat's recent acquisition of Chrysler, its debatable whether they still qualify as a 'domestic' at all anymore.

Though regardless of that, I see the acquisition of Chrysler by Fiat as a good thing in terms of the greater likelihood of Chrysler turning out better products than CR owners say they are now right now.

-Spyder

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: Sylvatica
GM simply dumped some worst-performing dogs which reduced their percentage of junk overall.


If Chrysler took that strategy, they'd have almost nothing left to sell, and would then put themselves out of their misery...

 

[AuthorEditor]

My local greasy garage owner agrees with CR when I ask him what are the most reliable cars--he doesn't hesitate to say Honda and Toyota, though he said he doesn't see them very often except for inspections.

 

[Kestas]

Some of the CR results can be confounding. I've seen cars that need lots of repair rate high in value. Some luxury cars were rated low in reliability, yet given high marks in satisfaction.

As Spyder said, we slam CR, but who has better information?

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
As Spyder said, we slam CR, but who has better information?


I think the better question is, we slam CR, but based on what factual grounds? The oft-used "bias" is about the only accusation I've seen against the organization. And of course, nobody can prove it anyway.

At best, I think one could say that CR's readership may not be a true representation of the total market. They surveys only go out to CR subscribers, so the selection set may not be as great as a true open survey. That doesn't make CR biased against anything in particular, but it may indicate that the results they get don't represent the total market.

I stay away from judging CR's results, only because I don't know enough about their process to know all of the facts at hand. But I will challenge anyone who accuses them (or anyone) of something to back it up with those facts to which I'm obviously not privvy.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Quote:
“Luxury vehicles today are filled with electronics, power equipment and new, leading-edge technologies that often don’t work that well,” Consumer Reports’ Fisher said.


That quote was in a Bloomberg article on the CR story. It's the explanation for why European luxury cars score so poorly on reliability.

 

[grampi]

It seems the validity of CR's reports is directly correlated to how they rate one's personal vehicle choice.

 

[Spyder7]

You nailed it grampi. And its not just a phenomena unique to CR: every single reliability report posted, regardless of the source, gets crucified as 'biased' because those most likely to take exception to it, and post, are the one's whose makes or models don't match their own personal bias.

I just found the accusation of a report from CR being junk because of a "CR bias" a little ironic when all they did was compile and present the data provided from the owner's own experiences and opinions of their own vehicle. Yet that makes CR biased. Amusing.

As another member stated, its one source to be used when evaluating a particular brand or model, but it should no more be used as a single data point than any other source of info. That hardly makes it "worthless," however. Unless the buyer prefers to either close his eyes and buy blindly (let the dealer do the talking, they are unbiased right), or limit his information to the sources that validate his own preconceived notions while ignoring the rest or accusing them of bias, worthlessness, etc because they don't fit with what they want to believe.

This is wish thinking at its finest and one way to make important decisions, such as car buying decisions. Certainly not the best method IMHO though.

-Spyder

 

[Spazdog]

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.



Agreed

There is no reason for the Sebring/Avenger to be a "pile" but that's what it is. It was developed from the same platform that underpins the Lancer EvoX. It shares a lot of engine components with the Sonata. It was a lot of good stuff that just didn't work.

I never thought of the Caliber that way, but that's exactly what it is. An attempt to replace the PL and PT platform with one car....a monkey's buttocks ugly one seemingly inspired by an Aztek left in the dryer overnight.

The Ram line is as capable as any other truck and continues to rank favorably in everyone else's comparisons. Same with the Grand Cherokee. And with GM ditching Pontiac (and the G8), where else are you going to get an American V8 RWD performance sedan?

You have to take what Consumers Reports writes with a grain of salt. Most of the time it is good, objective and fairly scientific. But apparently to boost sales once in awhile they hatchet job an otherwise good product. Thier hatchet jobs are well documented.

 

[VNTS]

Unfortunalty is you actually take a course in Quality, you have to start with a random sample. CR readers are not a random sample, hence you get skewed results.

Now if CR randomly sent out a questionaire to a random segment of the population, then you might have a valid survey.

There recommendation are like the Emmys. Biased elitest people voting for the best beautiful person. IMHO the avg joe who reads CR has no business telling me what kind of car has quality since most of their readers are mechanically and electrically clueless. They cant even pick out a toaster without reading the Almighty CR LOL

Most of my cars were on their Do Not buy list, my 89 Shadow with 279K says hi, while my MIL's 87 Corrolla and BIL 89 Isuzus which were on their recommended list are long departed in the junkyard. THey pontified the CR rating as the reason they purchased and could not understand why I bought a lowly Dodge and laughed at my car, I remind them of their choice in cars every holiday LOL

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
CR is one of the WORST sources you can get for automotive anything.

Hugely biased.


And nobody here is biased eh.

I'll take the CR owner satisfaction survey over the opinions held of automakers among those who've never owned anything by the brand, or tarnishes the entire brand based on one experience, any day of the week. And twice on Sunday.

Funny how the first couple pages people were commenting on how good was to see brand x doing so & so etc, based on CR, but then when the correction is made to the OPs post to make it accurately reflect what CR has to say, the very next post is (as predicted) a statement about their "huge bias" (in caps no less) - even though its based on what OWNERS themselves reported.

Give me a break Steve. You don't like it because what they are printing doesn't correspond to your own views - that's why they're 'biased' (and hugely no less).

Too bad the actual OWNER SATISFACTION survey its based on doesn't correspond with your bias and that of other members - as the recent Toyota thread is proof of, while in fact they and Honda are still tops for reliability.

GM, while improving, 'still has a long way to go.' Ford, while tops in the market, is only tops in the domestic market that consists of GM, Ford, and Chrysler; and given Fiat's recent acquisition of Chrysler, its debatable whether they still qualify as a 'domestic' at all anymore.

Though regardless of that, I see the acquisition of Chrysler by Fiat as a good thing in terms of the greater likelihood of Chrysler turning out better products than CR owners say they are now right now.

-Spyder

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7


I just found the accusation of a report from CR being junk because of a "CR bias" a little ironic when all they did was compile and present the data provided from the owner's own experiences and opinions of their own vehicle. Yet that makes CR biased. Amusing.



It is junk and it is biased, and I would state that fact regardless of who ends up on top of their "list". And I'll tell you why, it is an owners survey, which has it's own problems with bias to begin with. But more importantly they DON'T ever verify that you actually own the car you say you own and report on. I could send back negative reports on whatever make I wanted or vice versa, sending positive reports for companies I support.

Your correct assertion that owners demonstrate bias in these forums for and against certain makes is direct evidence that owners surveys are garbage. How can you say that owners in these forums are biased and then ignore the possibility of that bias entering this weak survey of non verified "owners". These forms could be filled out by the subscribers kids and CR would never know.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

I stay away from judging CR's results, only because I don't know enough about their process to know all of the facts at hand. But I will challenge anyone who accuses them (or anyone) of something to back it up with those facts to which I'm obviously not privvy.


The burden of proof ought to be on CR to show how and why their results are useful.

The very fact that you don't know enough about their process to judge it ought to tell you that maybe it shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt.

The rule here is not "innocent until proven guilty", or "correct until proven wrong".

It is "wrong until proven correct", and that is how all statistics are, and why if you ever read a research paper that deals with statistics they are very careful to show how the statistics were gathered.

 

[bigmike]

There was a class action suit against Honda for the brake issue.

http://www.accordsettlement.com/

Future claims can be completed as well. I believe the cut-off point is 3 years from the vehicle purchase or production date (not sure which).

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

I don't trust CR or most other reliability survery for that matter, including TrueDelta and JD Powers, but I find it hilarious that people here can criticize CR's methods but then turn around make generalized statements about their readership, essentialy making their own overly broad conclusions based on limited data.

The one auto reliability ratings I have some confidence in is MSN Autos, which on a few instances has identified specific problems that came up in automobiles I had owned. It may be significant that unlike the others, these rankings rely not on owner surveyes but on repair data compiled by Identifix

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
The burden of proof ought to be on CR to show how and why their results are useful.


CR's data will be useful to different people in different ways. No, I'm calling on people who make a direct accusation to back that up with facts. Someone said that CR is biased. Facts, please. I've not seen any.

Originally Posted By: brianl703
The very fact that you don't know enough about their process to judge it ought to tell you that maybe it shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt.


First, you're asking me to be skeptical, critical, of anything to which I'm ignorant. That's not the kind of person I am. If I don't have the facts on something, I don't judge it either way, good or bad.

Secondly, I'm not giving it the benefit of any doubt. I'm simply asking those who do accuse an organization of something to demonstrate why their accusation is valid. In fact, if you re-read what I wrote (which you didn't quote above), I suggested how CR's results may not be representative of the market. But there's a key distinction here: non-representative data doesn't imply that an organization is biased in either direction. Someone earlier made the direct accusation that CR, the organization, is biased. That's a completely separate (and more accusatory) issue than having a discussion on why CR's survey results may or may not represent the whole market.

 

[LS2JSTS]

At least JD Power verifies that the "owner" actually owns the car. JD surveys are sent out based on registration records.

But overall, I agree, ANY owner survey is prone to owner bias.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
It is "wrong until proven correct", and that is how all statistics are, and why if you ever read a research paper that deals with statistics they are very careful to show how the statistics were gathered.


I'm with ya on this one. Questioning CR on how they collect their data is fine. You're asking them to validate their process. That's great.

However, accusing the organization of "bias" is something completely separate.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Kestas


As Spyder said, we slam CR, but who has better information?


I've actually found MSN's info to be more useful, particularly since it details the actual problems (and solutions). LINK

I do think there are some issues with the methodology used by CR. When you give a car an overall "very good" reliability rating despite a "much worse than averge" rating under "transmission/major", then you need to re-evaluate your rating system. A repair which costs more than the value of the car shouldn't be weighted the same as brake pads....

True Delta is another source of info (he posts on the forum here). Here are some of his thoughts on CR's methodology.

That said, it would also be silly to dismiss it entirely. I think it's a very useful tool. You just have to recognize its limitations and use it as one piece of the puzzle, IMO.

 

[saberz]

I don't see how its completely biased. The surveys are from the people(YOU). That drive those vehicles and respond back with their qualms and what not.

CR(from reading the article) then reports those findings. Now I don't see how they can be biased completely(a part from their own comments on the reports) when again others such as ourselves report them. I think we in fact are biased, we own a stake in a make/model and we may enjoy it, but we need to realize that others may not, or may not experience the same trouble free operation.

Cars and ratings are like opinions, surveys are a way of fielding those opinions. So you have interpretation on the survey level, and another on the reader level where personal bias takes root.

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
JD surveys are sent out based on registration records.


OK, if that's supposed to be an advantage. However, we don't know if the owners kids are completing the surveys.

On general principle, I think I'd refuse to participate simply for having my personal info given by the manufacturer without my consent.