Consumer Report’s 2016 Annual Auto issue arrived here the other day, and it shows (once again) that the Japanese and Koreans continue to do better than average, in most categories. Here’s a quick look at a couple of their lists, starting with their Top Ten Picks, leaders in their respective categories for a combination of road test results, reliability, owner satisfaction and safety.
Click in the image for a larger (but torn) view, but in case you can’t make out their Top Ten Picks, it’s the Mazda MX-5, Chevrolet Impala, Kia Sorento, Ford F-150, Toyota Sienna, Subaru Impreza, Honda Fit, Subaru Forester, Toyota Camry and Lexus RX.
The next one is for the most and least reliable cars, based normally on three years of consumer data, except when noted otherwise. This one is even more lop-sided; not a single American brand on the left side, but plenty on the right.
And the final one is of the standouts from CR’s road test results, good and bad.
You’re certainly welcome to disagree, but let’s not pillory CR for what they are: an attempt to inject as much objectivity in the evaluation of automobiles, along with other consumer goods; their name is not “Enthusiast Reports”. They really are in a league of their own in regard to objectivity and consistency, as they buy all of their vehicles and test them at their own extensive facilities as well as on the roads; no junkets, spiffs, and puff pieces. CR represents an important voice among the chorus, and they are very influential, as there is a substantial segment of the car-buying market that uses them as a key reference guide. There’s no doubt that the dramatic rise of the Japanese in the 80s and up was in part fueled by CR, and more specifically Subaru’s remarkable growth rate in the past twenty or so years. And that goes for the Koreans in recent years too.
And on the flip side of the equation, there’s no doubt that the loss of market share of American passenger cars for decades was also impacted by CR’s reliability and road test results. Like them or not, they are undoubtedly the single most influential voice in the market place. For what it’s worth, it’s the only magazine I still get from which I get info on cars.
The question that springs to mind for me is “How bad is bad?” Offhand I’d say on average most new cars are way better than 30 years ago. Maybe this was helped along by CR raising the bar on what was acceptable.
Also, the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited got the worst score in the Road Test, having rented and driven one for a week in Hawaii I suspect the driving dynamics of that vehicle are exactly what the buyers want. I thought it was great for a week, but would get tiresome long term.
Anyway, why spend money on new cars when there are so many great old cars to be had on the cheap? For instance if you happened to live in Eugene OR there are five Covairs on Craigslist!
Exactly. You don’t know how bad “poor” is, or how good “good” is, because CR does not release their data.
I stopped listening to them long ago and started buying what I liked. I’m much happier with my vehicles today.
Car brands are like religion to a lot of people, but my experience in the garage business was that CR’s poorly rated vehicles arrived at our shop a lot more often than their highly rated vehicles.
I agree that CR is hugely influential. I have always considered their rankings and tests, but not as my sole data point.
My quarrels with CR are two. First, when testing new cars, they have what I would call a Northeastern Bias. In other words, they (who are headquartered in Connecticut) tend to like the kinds of vehicles that people in the Northeast like. Nothing wrong with that, but those of us who do not live in the Northeast and may have different lifestyles and priorities have to filter through a bias that I feel shows up in some of the scoring.
Second, the long term reliability surveys are purely owner reported, and can be misleading by lumping minor and major things into some categories.
These things said, CU does provide a service by doing the tests and administering the surveys. Their results may need a little interpretation or weighting in a particular case, but we are better off having the data than not having it.
“but we are better off having the data than not having it”
Isuzu and Suzuki disagree.
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-a-black-eye-for-consumer-reports/
I agree with your observation of “inherent bias”. Approximately 10 to 15 years ago, CR gave the air conditioning system on a Korean car a very low rating. Yet, it gave the same vehicle its highest overall rating.
Such a rating my be OK for Connecticut, but it doesn’t cut it in the Deep South. The whole idea of buying a new car in the south is that it’s too expensive to fix the A/C on an older car. Who wants to buy a highly rated car with a weak A/C any place south of Washington DC.
No doubt CR’s vehicle ratings are extremely influential, but the long term owner surveys are owner reported and there is a subjectivity issue here, what’s minor to one person may be major to another. I don’t know how it could be implemented, but there needs to be some methodology in the CR surveys to differentiate between what are minor issues and major problems.
And here is the crux of the problem. You have the mostly ignorant public reporting on how reliable there car is or isn’t. Judging by how dumb people are overall when it comes to technology would you want those same people rating car electronics? Would you want them rating how reliable they thing there car is just because it didn’t break down 20 times in 5 years vs a car that didn’t break down that the consumer had to sink thousands in repair dollars to keep going.
A perfect example would be the 3 Impala’s I have owned since 2000. They were all reliable and never have left me stranded to date. The 2000 needed it’s intermediate steering shaft lubricated twice, a battery, alternator and little else in the 172k miles I owned it. That 3800 was a bull dog of a motor and never missed a beat and the car felt just as substantial and rattle free as the day I picked it up. The next 2008 2LT 3900 was just as reliable and only needed a battery and alternator in the 125K miles I owned that car. Otherwise it was routine maintenance. My 2013 now is approaching 50k miles and has not seen the service department yet unless you count oil changes and tire rotations and still has it’s original brakes and air filters.
Contrast that to my folks long time friends of 40 years who have owned numerous Toyota products over the years including a 2000 Camry V6 XLE replaced by a 2006 V6 XLE Camry that was replaced by a 2012 XLE Avalon. These 3 cars have also been mostly reliable but have needed much more in unscheduled dealer service. The 2000 seemed to have a habit of warping it’s brake rotors, the 3 liter V6 starting using oil when it hit about 80K miles and the Toyota dealer told them that there engine was starting to sludge up and would need a new engine before very long prompting the switch over to the 2006. That 2006 was in the shop more than there driveway it seemed. Spark knocking, surging issues going up hills, oil leak in the intake manifold, failed exhaust at only 5 years of age
wheel bearings, a transmission shifting issue that prompted several prom flashes to cure, a failed passenger window motor and lots of other little issues plagued this car. They were so turned off by this Camry that they were initially going to replace it with a Fusion or Taurus. The dealer they did business with sold both Fords and Toyota/Scion. In the end the dealer talked them into a leftover 2012 Avalon with quite a bit off the sticker and a good trade for the Camry and they are currently driving this car. It has been in the shop for 3 things since 2013. The steering column broke where it wouldn’t budge an inch with the tilt mechanism. They had to replace the entire column and said there were two other Avalon’s with the same issue sitting out back. The engine had a random misfire code on number 3 cylinder which turned out to be a faulty spark plug and he has gone through two sets of front brakes with the current ones squealing constantly right after they broke in. Apparently Toyota dealers don’t believe in ceramic pads because both my 2008 and 2013 Impala’s had them and they never squealed. When questioned about each of there Toyota’s by CR they mostly gave them good reports! Both are staunch CR readers and can’t figure out why I don’t buy foreign cars like everybody else. When asked how my car is doing it’s usually a very brief conversation because there is not much to complain about going wrong. That to me is a cult like religious belief that if it’s foreign it’s automatically better and one of the major reasons I take what CR says with a grain of salt. Notice too how there ratings compare to other publications like JD Power who says GM is one of there highest ranked in 2015. The best place I go to for car reliability is my ever busy mechanic for things I can’t do like inspections or tire rotations. Surprise they tell me that one of there least worked on cars is the Impala. If you read CR’s assessment of the W-body series Impala they make it out to be a sad joke of a car with no redeeming features other than a large trunk. I’m seriously shocked they give the new one such a high rating.
Anecdotal evidence from personal experience is not considered statistically relevant.
Try as I might, I’m not impressed with any of today’s cars. However well built, or how reliable they may be, most of the cars, trucks, and SUVs, I find hideous to look at.
The upshot is that in all cars nowadays one can sit inside and look out. And as reliable as they all are now, in comparison to the good old days, you don’t have to stand there looking at it and wishing it would start! 🙂
Jason, that’s what AAA cards are for.
Looking at an older car, wishing it would start?
You need to stop collecting Yugos, old Fiats, MGs, Triumphs, Renaults and Rovers. 😉
As one who has a 53 year old car with points it will someday give me a vicious surprise. You just have to expect it.
As for the makes you mention, all have their own unique susceptibilities.
My 81 Corolla, did that yesterday, in a car wash bay of all places… Very embarrassing.
Pushed it backward, tried the key a few times… Nothing.
It has a new starter, alternator and decent battery from my 81 280ZX.
Well, while me and my girl sat there amongst, the parked cars, I pulled the radio out to look at any touching, exposed wires.
I pushed the radio back in, but I must’ve blown a fuse, because the radio didn’t come back on.
My gf turned the key, and the Corolla came back to life. I suspect a drain, due to an exposed wire. The radio and tail lights both didn’t work… Which ended up being a fuse in the kick panel.
I taped all suspect wires, so hopefully, the drain problem is gone. Sucks to be outta town, and getting silence when I turn the key, when it comes to time to to leave.
I can imagine what dealing with points must be like on an older car, too.
Funny, about the makes I “blacklisted”… A former friend of mine says the most reliable car he owned was an 83 Renault Alliance.
I was like, “Naw, that can’t be right… Really?”. 😛
Sit inside and look out…at all the OTHER ugly blob cars!
Bingo!
Yep, not too many good looking candidates out there for 2016. Blah.
I picked up this year’s issue as soon as I saw it in the rack, and started to notice something odd. First thing: this year’s tables only include three years of data. Last year’s issue covered as many as 10 years for models that had been in production under the same name that long.
The second odd thing I noticed was that, in referring back to last year’s issue, there seemed to be a sudden improvement in reliability across subsystems, across brands around 2012. While you would expect an older car to have more problems, CR claims they adjust their data to filter out pure age effects.
Third thing. some of the tables do not make sense. In the case of the 2015 VW Golf, for instance, every subsystem is rated either slightly better, or much better, than average, yet the overall reliability rating of the car is much worse than average. How can a car be “much worse than average” if every subsystem in the car is “better than average”?
Here’s a scan of the table.
I posted this oddity on an automotive group on Facebook, and discovered that one of the lurkers on that group is Michael Karesh, who runs the True Delta site, which also compiles reliability data.
About 10 years ago, Karesh posted an article about how CR evaluates it’s data.
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php
Vehicles are vastly more reliable now then they were 30 or 40 years ago, and the differences between the best and worst are now quite small. The failure rates have gotten so small, and the differences between different cars are so small, that CR has resorted to using absolute, rather than relative, numbers to define their ratings.
Now a half black or full black dot denotes a failure rate of 3% or more per year. A failure rate under 2% receives a half red dot and a failure rate under 1% receives a full red dot “much better than average”.
While their subsystem ratings are based on absolute numbers, their overall reliability prediction and their used car verdict are still based on a car’s reliability relative to other cars. So that is how a car where every subsystem is rated “better than average” receives a “much worse than average” reliability score. In the example above, the Golf is rated poorly because it is not as far above average as other models.
Here is the chart of average failure rates for different subsystems in this year’s issue.
Under their old system, the average score for “major engine problem” would have been denoted by a clear circle, ie “average”. Now the average rate of occurrence for a “major engine problem” is less than 1% for a three year old car, so that “average” engine now receives a full red dot, which we have all been trained to read as exceptionally reliable, but that is now the average.
Bottom line is the only real warning is anything that shows up in CR with a full black circle for a subsystem, because that would denote a failure rate somewhere between 3% and 100%. Any model that does not show any subsystem with a black mark, can be expected to have a failure rate for any subsystem under 3%/yr.
Thank you for the explanation. That reinforces my belief that the ratings for each subsystem are what really matter, as they give a good idea of where you can expect a vehicle – particularly a used one – to give trouble.
That reinforces my belief that the ratings for each subsystem are what really matter, as they give a good idea of where you can expect a vehicle – particularly a used one – to give trouble.
Not only look at the subsystem data, but reorder our thinking. Used to be the “average” rating was a clear dot, and the sea of red we saw with Toyotas was the exception. Now we have to take red dots as representing the average and a clear dot, or even a half red dot, as not quite up to snuff.
By the present ratings, even the Fiat 500 is a reliable car, except for the electrics…..and I have seen Carfax reports on them noting replacement of starters, defroster fans, instrument clusters and repeated computer reprogrammings.
The 2013 Acura ILX received no rating in any category that was below “better than average.” Out of 16 categories, only three were rated as “better than average.” Every other category was rated as “much better than average.”
The 2014 Acura ILX received a “much better than average” score in every category, except for four. Of those four categories, it received a “better than average” rating in three. It received a “worse than average” rating in a grand total of one category – “noises/leaks.”
Yet the new car prediction for the ILX is…worse than average.
And customers I have sold ILX’s to really like their cars. They never come back for any type of warranty work or issues. Go figure!
On that note, could the facelift be significantly boosting sales? I feel like I’ve been seeing way more 2016s than 2012-2015s combined lately.
I was also in RI today and saw tons of new TLXs, probably a lot from Warwick? 🙂
That’s a good thing Brendan!
I used to consider CR kind of a joke because their objectivity tended to disagree with what I subjectively wanted in a vehicle. Now that I lease a 2014.5 Camry and a 2015 Sienna, I guess I’ve gone completely mainstream!
That said, I am just amazed at how nice a vehicle my Sienna is to drive. I find it more luxurious than all of the Cadillac’s I sell. The ride is super smooth and comfortable. The seating position is upright and chair-height with a command position. The steering (oh how nice hydraulic steering is!) and gas pedal are light but with plenty of feel. The engine is powerful, torquey and willing. And the turning radius is world class. Add in shoulder room and knee room and foot room and I am just amazed that minivan’s have such a negative reputation.
The Cadillac XTS is a close second to the Sienna in terms of a luxury ride, but the driving position is a touch awkward and it’s just not that big a car inside.
The Escalade is the luxury vehicle of choice for many these days, and I drive Escalade’s regularly. They are really quite nice, but they are heavier, harder riding (despite the magnetic ride control suspension), more difficult to steer straight on the highway, and smaller inside in a number of ways.
I don’t think pillory is really necessary, they do a good job removing any and all emotion from car buying and boil it all down to dry statistical analysis.
CR has really done a good job of integrating an enthusiast perspective into their work, from what I can see. The reviews seem just as objective as before, but there’s more subjective interpretation and focus on a car’s over the road behavior than used to be the case. It’s not all trunk access and ergonomics, these days.
Not only that, it’s one of the only sources wherein one can read about the “average” car’s performance. Publications like C&D used to compare affordable cars much more frequently, but these days, CR is one’s only source.
Their Talking Cars podcast is excellent, too.
Publications like C&D used to compare affordable cars much more frequently, but these days, CR is one’s only source.
I used to subscribe to both Road & Track and Motor Trend in the 70s. Both covered cars that were relevant to me, through an enthusiast’s eyes.
By 80 or so, Motor Trend went back to it’s boy racer roots, and I dropped it. By the end of the 80s, R&T had gone back to it’s elitist roots, and I dropped it.
Same here, Steve. Automobile Magazine is the most pretentious of the lot.
While certainly trusted and comprehensive, Consumer Reports is so dry it makes the Sahara look like a swamp. For example, a vehicle like the Jeep Wrangler just doesn’t compute for CR–the emotion is so totally stripped out that they miss any of the rationale for the Wrangler’s appeal. The U.S.-based buff books are boring in a different way: lots of juvenile writing with an excessive focus on super cars and extremely high-end luxury cars. Their reliance on junkets and advertising often make their views rather suspect. I still get them all, primarily to keep my collection going, but am very rarely enthused to read them cover to cover.
Personally I miss the Consumer Guide Auto Series guides, which used to cover all models but mixed in a fair bit of subjectivity with the data, so you could get a feel for the vehicle’s mission and range of attributes. They usually got their cars from dealers, gained first hand driving experience in normal urban/suburban conditions, and then rated each one from their own human (not statistician robot) perspective.
I agree with that statement. Consumer Guide was always a very cool magazine to me growing up in the 70’s and 80’s and I always found what they said about cars more accurate and believable than CR. The cars CR panned as being unreliable like my dad’s 1984 Ciera and moms 1992 Cutlass Supreme were actually very reliable and lasted them well over 10 years each with good service.
Years ago I believed in them, but I am no longer a fan of Consumer Reports. Yes, I sell Acuras and yes, everyone is going to say I am biased because I do. I am simply being honest. Our newest sedan, the TLX, went through some ‘new model syndrome’, strictly with its 8-speed and 9-speed transmissions at the beginning of the model year 2015. Acura worked the bugs out with software updates and such. I have sold over a hundred TLX’s and have had only two people have minor software issues with theirs. And the issues were only with very early production vehicles. Other than that everyone loves their TLX. In fact the owners of the affected cars still love their cars as well! I know firsthand because I keep in touch with my customers and speak with them when they come in for oil changes, etc. Consumer Reports says the predicted reliability of the TLX is MUCH WORSE THAN AVERAGE. Seriously? Absolutely makes no sense at all. Yet nearly all other categories are perfect. And if you look at the customer satisfaction rating it gets a better than average rating! If these cars were breaking down and horribly unreliable wouldn’t customers NOT be satisfied? I don’t believe and cannot trust Consumer Reports anymore. I have lost customers because of their nonsense.
I noticed that, too, but also noted that the only subsystem where the TLX received a “worse than average rating” was “transmission minor” (which covers shudders, rough shifting, etc.). This squares with what I was reading on temple of vtec. So I’m not ready to completely dismiss the ratings. They still identify potential problem areas.
The shudders and rough shifting – which I personally have never experienced in any TLX I have driven – have been rectified with the software updates. The 2016 TLX has not experienced them at all!
If a fix is available, I’m curious as to why Edmund’s also continues to report problems with the 9speed auto transmission in their 2015 TLX long-term tester? They consistently complain about the poor quality of the shifting:
http://www.edmunds.com/acura/tlx/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-acura-tlx-awkward-conversations.html
Maybe it’s not as noticeable as Edmunds and others portray. I know I actually prefer a firmer shift and have programmed my truck to do so. But the media seems to like mushy and unobtrusive shifting. Could also have to do with most consumers not pushing it to the limit on a test track.
Just some thoughts, I’ve never tried the ZF-9.
Maybe they haven’t had the up-to-date TSB software updates done as of late?
Yikes! More Honda/Acura auto transmission woes?
I’m cringing thinking about those automatic grenades in those 1999-2005 Odysseys, Accords, TLs and CLs… No wonder the Accord lost to the Camry, in top sales.
Every Honda and Acura, I’ve owned was a manual, except an 89 Accord LX, with the autocraptic.
That car revved too high, which made the transmission very difficult to shift, without slamming it in every gear.
Sold that lemon, to some young guy who kept calling about it. I told him about the problem, but he said he wanted the car… Oh we’ll, I warned em.
CR also gives both Cadillac and Ford bad ratings for reliability in certain areas because of there infotainment systems. I have driven loads of current Cadillac’s and Fords with the Cue and Sync systems and never had an issue with any of them save a minor lockup that simply required a re-start. They carry on like these systems are so bad that you should avoid any car that has them which is most of there brands. Because of this and many other inconsistencies I rarely listen to what they have to say about cars.
I started reading and put it down after a short while. I have not been back to it since, and it will probably get filed before it gets finished. I find myself looking at the Auto Issue to verify statistics and specifications but find my ideas and needs different from those arising from their Northeastern biased mindset. I DO find something wrong with Northeasterners’ tendency to recommend what they prefer for the rest of the country as though someone in another part of the country should agree with all their prejudices…and prejudices are exactly what they have, while self-righteously claiming to be unbiased. It’s not just Consumer Reports that has a Northeastern prejudice, either.
CR’s (and JD Power’s) system of treating all “problems” more or less equally, distinguishing only between those that make the car undrivable/unsafe and those that don’t is broken.
It worked well enough in the days when all automatic transmissions were basically the same (and massively overbuilt and dead reliable) a car radio was a car radio, everyone expected to deal with a few loose screws and mismatched trim, and when the typical new-car buyer traded in every 3-5 years, tops. But with so many advances in CVTs, DCTs, infotainment and connectivity, and much of that in the hands of buyers coming straight from 1999-2007 models there needs to be a finer-grained way of sorting fundamental flaws from teething troubles and customer learning-curve issues.
Agree 100%
I guess if I were a machine with totally rational thought processes that was shopping for another, larger machine to carry me around from place to place….then CR might be useful.
I didn’t read the whoke list, but when the MINI….with an automatic transmission no less, was at the top of their “Standouts” list ( admittedly because they list the smallest vehicles first) CR has lost all trace of believability.
Like everybody else’s new car guide, I take the info provided with a grain of salt, so to speak.
Uh, did you even see what table the Mini was in? It was in the “Standouts and Stinkers From Our Road Tests” table. That’s looking at the subjective opinions of people who drive those cars – basically, how impressed they were with how the car drove.
The only new Mini that I really like is the first gen one, but even still, Minis drive a lot better than the vast majority of cars in that category – automatic or not. And since CR is an American publication that doesn’t cater towards the small subset of the American populace that spends their time talking about how manuals are the only way to get a true driving experience, having an automatic transmission probably wasn’t a huge ding against the Mini in that test.
That table isn’t a reliability table. The Mini definitely isn’t the most reliable subcompact, but that’s not what was being measured.
I’m bummed the Chrysler 300 scores as least reliable large car. I’ve really been wanting to pull the pin on a V8 model, before the last full sized North American V8 sedan disappears.
They crap all over the 200 too. I’ve got a 2013 200 Touring with 70,000 miles. No problems and we love it. When I was thinking about buying a 200 I would ask people in parking lots how they liked theirs. The owners had nothing but good things to say despite the automotive press crapping all over them.
The one I had was fantastic. Yes, I only owned it for a year and it was eight months old when I got it but it had zero issues and seemed solid as a rock when I traded it in with around 20k miles. From a build quality, perceived solidity and my own anecdotal reliability history, the 300C AWD with V8 and 5-speed automatic was superb. It gets the Jim Klein Two Thumbs Up (JKTTU) award.
I always kind of looked at Consumer Reports askance. There used to be (maybe there still is) something like it for guns. It was even more opinionated and biased with a tin ear towards why someone might want a particular piece even if the author-judging it from their own bias-thought it was junk.
I bought a 2014 300c because I like the way it looks. I really don’t care what something like CR rates them low. I asked around with people who actually own them and I never heard any major problems from these people so I pulled the trigger. I’ve only had an oil pressure sensor go bad that was fixed under warranty without any issue or complaint by the dealer in 35,000 miles.
The funny thing is I know of at least 3 teachers at work with these and none have had any issues with theirs and they would happily buy one again. Ditto the Charger/Challenger
I stopped reading the article when they listed an Audi and a BMW in the most reliable column.
So basically, you refuse to accept that your preconceived notions might in some cases be wrong? I don’t particularly like CU (due to the whole Suzuki Samurai thing), but I don’t see why they would twist the data in favor of Audi and BMW, when for years they seemed to enjoy taking the piss out of German brands.
Consumer Reports doesn’t have to twist data. Their readers who constitute the population responding to their surveys do. A fault in a BMW that is “taken care of” by their dealer “as part of the routine service” doesn’t get thought of as a “problem” but one that the owner gets fixed in a visit to the dealer for warranty service, does. Instant bias, causing skewed survey results. Consumer Reports surveys are written to produce these results. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
No I can easily accept when my preconceived notions are wrong. However when it comes to German cars, my preconceived notions are quite correct. They are overpriced, unreliable, have piss poor resale value and really don’t seem to offer anything that you cannot get buying a cheaper and more reliable car.
With a Lexus, you get luxury and refinement and the peace of mind that everything in the car is going to work when you need it. A Benz, well maybe it will work if you replace a switch or a relay.
My uncle owns a foreign repair shop and has run it for over 35 years. He mainly works on German and Italian cars. When someone in the family asks for his recommendation on buying a good used car he usually tells them to buy a Ford/GM or Toyota/Honda made in the last 5-6 years. Doesn’t say much about German car reliability.
Thats funny I noticed our two local European car mechanics daily drive Toyota pickups.
“unreliable” has a very different definition today than it did, say, 30 years ago.
30 years ago an unreliable car might not start, or would die on the road necessitating a tow truck. “Unreliable” today means “the touchscreen is weird sometimes” or “the transmission shifts funny.”
Looking at this from across the pond and therefore not as familiar as most with the US models and the CR methology, I have 2 initial observations, as well as not being surprised by the success of the Japanese and Korean brands.
One is to ask if this selection is self selecting, and if so is anything done to control for it?
And the second is surprise that a Mercedes Benz (and the S CLass no less) is in the unreliable column. From personal experience, I’d recommend the Fiesta as (very) reliable also
I assume the Fiesta is least reliable due to the issues with the dry clutch DCT (Powershift)
there were some early failures when the DPS6 first came out in 2011. But most of the complaints are low-speed chattering and shift quality, not actual component failures. people don’t like it because it feels too “different” from a normal automatic, different in a way that people perceive as broken.
Hundreds of lawsuits and class action legal filings for the Fiesta and Focus say otherwise. Haedly “some early failures”. Even the engineers didn’t claim it was fixed until 2014. More than a “feeling”.
I wouldn’t touch one for any kind of money. Beta test with someone else’s dollars.
So? we’ve got a class action lawsuit against Daimler now for cheating on diesel emissions tests, and they have yet to be proven to have been cheating!
We’re closing in on a million data samples from all over the United States. This long-term quality study has been active since January 2013. But it took at least a year’s worth of data, approximately 300,000 trade-ins, before I started writing about it for Yahoo.
http://longtermqualityindex.com/
We’re going to be breaking out the reliability data across powertrains instead of models over the next couple of months. It should be interesting what we find. In the meantime, if you’re bored today, feel free to find the model that interests you.
http://longtermqualityindex.com/find.html
All the best!
Steve
CR reviews are so tersely worded, that I feel an alien from out of space is typing up the review.
Also, the monthly review of vehicles would group a set of compact sedans or SUVs in the same issue and provide insight into the strength and weakness of each vehicle as compared to the pact.
Now, a single pickup truck is evaluated without comparison to other trucks. The review is so out of context that it hangs there like a dangling participial!!!!
Based on the above, I only buy CR when I am in the market for a new or used car. Past that point, it stays on the magazine rack of the book store.
Also they are basing that pickup(Tundra) against the Chevy Colorado which other then being a pickup truck is not even in the same vehicle class as the Tundra. The Tundra is a fullsize pickup and should have been compared against the F150 or Chevy Silverado.
FIAT 500L, ownership of one year and 25,000 trouble free miles, best car I have ever owned!
Not a lot of Hondas on the list, which is a surprise since the Civic/Accord always ranked high in the past. Although I drove a new Civic the other day and it was just “meh”.
The new Honda Civics have been recalled and are not for sale now because they’ve forgotten to install rings in the engines. Other Hondas have transmission problems. So now, they only get average rating in reliability after being much better than average since the 70s. Toyota and Lexus continue to lead, and Hyundai is catching up after many years of below average.
1) it’s potential missing *snap rings* which hold the wrist pins in place, not the piston rings themselves.
2) the “transmission problems” are complaints about shift quality of the 9 speed auto which is the same ZF 9HP transaxle Chrysler is using. It’s not broken, it just feels different than other automatics and customers are complaining.
Except for the rough shifting of the Acura TLX, the current issue of Consumer Reports doesn’t note any problems with Honda or Acura transmissions.
The problematic transmissions were installed on Honda and Acura V-6s between 1999 and 2004. The Honda Odyssey had a problem with the torque converter through about 2007, but that could apparently be cured with a software revision.
I used to subscribe to CR but I came to consider them only as data input rather than being usable as a single source for decision making. The magazine got boring after they stopped publishing the mechanics of their testing – pretty much a 15 minute read and then into the trash. I tried an online subscription for a year or two, but found it impossible to use on my phone while shopping. For cars, I ‘ve gone to True Delta and Edmunds and for everything else Amazon reviews (which are are now apparently including paid testimonials which diminishes their worth.)
I never understood the hate for CR – of course the data they get is imperfect but (excluding TrueDelta these days) what else is there with any reliable data. And while some their choices really surprised me (Caddys seem to do poorly even though GM swears they’ve reformed), some didn’t (Chryslers are now made to Italian quality standards -or is it just Cerberus quality standards? ).
The 300’s showing is consistent with the ownership experience of my 2014 300 Limited:
Since new and at 500 miles: The car has exhibited a strange whining noise at cold startup since new. The noise lasts for two to three minutes then fades away. The selling dealer and no other dealers in 1 hour radius were able to offer a loaner while the problem was being diagnosed, and their hostility towards me for showing up in a car they didn’t sell was unbelievable. Chrysler Customer Care stepped in and finally located a dealer with a loaner (a 2015 200 LX) 45 minutes away. The dealer replaced the idler pulley but the problem continued. Then the dreaded “unable to duplicate issue” kiss of death and they kick me to the curb. Still living with the damn noise.
I finally locate a dealer who just picked up the Chrysler franchise 30 miles south of me. Extraordinary customer service and loaners too!
At 3,000 miles, the 845RE bump stop issue emerged. TSB, reflash, everything has been fine (mostly) since.
At 8,000 miles, the right front tension strut started rattling. Replaced under warranty.
At 10,500 miles, the climate control started blowing roasting hot humid air while set at 65 degrees. I can’t modulate the temperature. TSB, reflash, fine for a few thousand miles, but now it’s back
at 17,000 miles.
During the same visit, I report that the UConnect voice command function works on all but the SiriusXM functions. TSB, reflash, all has been well.
At 15,000 miles the “Battery Saver Mode On” warning appeared in the DIC. There is a recall on all 2011-2014 LX cars built to early ’14 regarding prematurely failing alternators, but mine is replaced under warranty as the car’s build date is 05/14. The dealer can’t tell me whether the new alternator design remedies the defect.
At 6 months, the finish on all four wheels had started to bubble up around the center caps. The car is hand washed with quality products. Chrysler agreed to replace all the wheels.
The car is now starting to jerk slightly while accelerating up to highway speeds. The dealer is aware and says the transmission valve body might be the culprit.
Finally,The alarm activated while exiting the car normally.
I’m willing to put up with some defects on a car I love, but I just don’t have the time for this.
I plan to be out of this car once the warranty is up.
Nice job FCA.
Like any source of automotive reviews, CR should be taken with at grain of salt. It’s good to be aware of what people are saying, especially collectively-speaking, but it’s all about experiencing all aspects of the car for yourself in person to make a firm opinion.
Alternatives include carcomplaints.com, edmunds.com, parkers.co.uk. Any thoughts on these? A problem I see with parkers is, almost everything I look at is deemed reliable.
Almost everything out there is reliable today.
That’s too vague to be useful. If I consider product X, how do I know whether it’s inside or outside your set of “almost?”
Of course CR is dealing with a large data set and a good deal of subjectivity as to how the data is reported. We are long term subscribers and I have filled out surveys for many years. More than once I realized after the fact that I failed to report some problem. My guess is that subjectivity enters in somewhat like this: When an owner likes his car he tends to under report problems and when dislikes his car he over reports. I wonder if CR has some method to control for this of if over a large data sample all of this just “comes out in the wash”.
I am very greatful for CR. It has given us useful guidance on many purchases, not just cars.
This is the weakness in CR’s data. J D Power tries to get a statistically meaningful data set that allows them to rank makes from best to worst. However they don’t tell us where the problems are, so CR does have useful information.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2016-us-vehicle-dependability-study-vds
Note that Cadillac slid down a lot. Ford is near the bottom, worse than Land Rover who used to be at the bottom.
I have been a CR follower since I was in junior high but when you buy the vehicle
they have been telling you for twenty years is wonderful reliable etc and the one
you get includes problems problems and the vehicle is notorious for these issues
(as I have learned from the web sites) what the hell is going on here?
I read CR every now and then, mostly for it’s reliability stats. Their road test scores have little value to me, as their wants, likes, needs might not match mine. I can decided which car I like best by doing my own road tests, and if I want performance data this is not my source. CR magazine is great at offering tons of data in chart form for easy model to model comparison.
Their reliability stats seem to be pretty on par with reality, and in my opinion far better than something like JD Power data. As others have mentioned, the problem with their data is that it does not specify what the problems. At least now they break down engine into major and minor. But what does driveline problem mean? Bad u-joints or bad rear differentials that grenade? Big dollar differences their. That is one thing I really like about True Delta. I participate with that website and you can actually read the problems each car is having, when the problems occurred, and the cost to repair them. It’s also easy to notice trends with certain cars with True Delta.
I also noticed that CR’s reliability stats aren’t often too accurate when the cars are really new. It seems some cars can change drastically as they age, especially those that don’t have major problems crop up until they are older. Another thing that I though was strange was that they drop the road test scores on some vehicles without a retest. For instance, I noticed that the Toyota Tundra road test score has dropped with time, yet the last time they actually tested one was in 2007. Maybe the theory is that the bar has been raised by newer trucks, but it seems kind of arbitrary to lower the score. Further, even though the truck hasn’t had a major redesign since 2007, it did get heavily revamped in 2014. To me, they should have removed the road test score and retested the newer truck to be fair. Things like this also make me more leery of their road test data.
It seemed like the U.S. domestic brands had closed some CR gaps with the Asian brands several years ago, but the gaps are back and the rankings don’t seem to be much different from 30 years ago.
While it is not stated here, I do believe that all cars are vastly improved over 30 or 40 years ago. The number of problems reported per average car is way down. In other words, today’s middle of the pack Ford product would be quite a bit better than just about any 1985 Toyota.
While I have not seen CR in a few years, my last experience reading it was better then during the 1980s. They appeared more subjective about comparing one SUV to another vs. the old days when they seemed to have a bunch of tree huggers on staff that all lived in a big city environment and would excoriate any car that offered a little heft, power and some comfort on the road. They would make cute comments like ‘”the Lincoln Town Car is not really suited to in town driving.” Where they hell did they come up with crap like that? I’ve driven barges for years and they’ve only rarely bothered me in the deepest of inner city driving. On the other hand, they’ve made terrific long distance cruisers.
The rule of thumb was not to buy the first model year of a major change on a car. I have followed this rule and it seems to have worked to my favor.
With the average price of new car/SUV/truck north of $35k, I don’t want GM, Ford, or FCA using me to prove or disprove “bleeding” edge technology. The same can be said for the Asian manufacturers as well. Also, I have swore off any European brand since I was old enough to purchase a car with my own money.
I too avoid any first year cars. My 2002 Intrigue, 2008 Impala and current 2013 Impala have all been super reliable with no issues other than service and a battery replacement.
So I went to the library to look at this issue of CR. I wanted to know why the ATS was considered least reliable. So I looked at the back of the issue where they show what parts are good or bad for each model. So the ATS should have a bunch of black circles, but all I see are red ones!!!!!