"Consumer Reports ranks Toyota, Lexus most reliable, Mercedes worst"

[alarmguy]

It doesn’t tell you anything when it comes to reliability. It only tells you that certain people drive certain brands more than others. But you could get that data from sales numbers too. There is a lot of bias here, and not actual data.

Oh it sure does, in fact it's the only reliable source. I keep reading this stuff but no one can produce a better source. Its laughable!
Maybe if the naysayers actually read CR for a couple years they would understand the publication instead of this hearsay stuff.
You look up vehicles that score low on major engine or transmission repairs, then go out into the field and do your own research, oh, you will find out there was a problem with the Ford Fiesta transmission ect. ect.

No bias, its actual data reported by owners of the vehicles. "Car Reviews" are subjective for sure, let's NOT confuse that with the actual data in CR as reported by car owners.

It's all good we buy what we like, CR is the best source to at least give someone a heads up if there is a glaring issue with a vehicle. If not tell me a better one.

 

[edyvw]

Oh it sure does, in fact it's the only reliable source. I keep reading this stuff but no one can produce a better source. Its laughable!
Maybe if the naysayers actually read CR for a couple years they would understand the publication instead of this hearsay stuff.
You look up vehicles that score low on major engine or transmission repairs, then go out into the field and do your own research, oh, you will find out there was a problem with the Ford Fiesta transmission ect. ect.

No bias, its actual data reported by owners of the vehicles. "Car Reviews" are subjective for sure, let's NOT confuse that with the actual data in CR as reported by car owners.

It's all good we buy what we like, CR is the best source to at least give someone a heads up if there is a glaring issue with a vehicle. If not tell me a better one.

Just because there in no other source doesn’t mean this one is ok. That is NOT how things work. I write peer review articles for living. I reviewed them too as part of the job. I am not going to recommend something for publishing if methodology is questionable just bcs. there is nothing like that out there. The reason why there is no bulletproof reliability statistics out there is that this research to be done properly, it would cost huge amount of money. In my business we go after the grants to fund that. CR can’t do that as they are business, not academia where money is used for research. They have to make money. For them to do appropriate research would cost arm and leg that would never yield profit.
But, that doesn’t mean this is ok. Of course they can claim whatever they want, and you can get an orgasm looking at this data, but it is still junk.

 

[alarmguy]

But, that doesn’t mean this is ok. Of course they can claim whatever they want, and you can get an orgasm looking at this data, but it is still junk.

It's data, nothing to claim.
Just imagine if people ignored other peoples experiences with products. Makes no sense what you and some others are saying.
Yet, will recommend a product based on nothingness? So are you saying people should listen to your one opinion vs multiple others.
We all know most Toyotas have a reputation for durability and how is that?
Enough said from me, most who are reading this know what I am saying.

 

[edyvw]

It's data, nothing to claim.

Data that if you turn as a paper in undergraduate class in freshman year would give you D. Not F, as professors would take into consideration that you spent some time doing it.

 

[OVERKILL]

I participate with TrueDelta.

Same here.

 

[ecotourist]

Tesla doesn't do very well overall, but there is one bright spot.

The Model 3 (which is Tesla's most reliable vehicle) is more reliable than the most reliable vehicle produced by Buick, Cadillac, VW, Mercedes, and (not surprisingly) Ram, GMC, and Jeep. Admittedly that's not a terribly reliable crowd.

As a bit of a surprise, the Model 3 is more reliable than the least reliable vehicle produced by every maker other than Lexus.

To get a low overall rating, you'd have to suspect that Tesla must be producing a real stinker. But that's not true either.

The least reliable Tesla is more reliable than the least reliable vehicle produced by Kia, Lincoln, Hyundai, Nissan, Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, VW, Jeep and Mercedes.

Overall Tesla seems about the same as Volvo considering only their most and least reliable vehicles. But no doubt more attention to reliability would be very welcome.

 

[ecotourist]

I think the reason that some makers are shown with low product types is because CR has insufficient data to comment on the reliability of the rest. They don't comment at all on Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc for the same reason - lack of sufficient data. So I believe they are ensuring their data is valid before printing it.

Sure there are weaknesses with CR's data. They get their information from subscribers who don't always participate (we didn't participate this year and our '21 Tesla Model 3 would have had a perfect score for reliability and owner satisfaction). Their subscriber base isn't a random sample of the population. Perhaps they focus too much on details (it's hard to be sure about that though). And finally they don't publish the gritty details which would satisfy the math types and annoy everyone else.

 

[OVERKILL]

Tesla doesn't do very well overall, but there is one bright spot.

The Model 3 (which is Tesla's most reliable vehicle) is more reliable than the most reliable vehicle produced by Buick, Cadillac, VW, Mercedes, and (not surprisingly) Ram, GMC, and Jeep. Admittedly that's not a terribly reliable crowd.

As a bit of a surprise, the Model 3 is more reliable than the least reliable vehicle produced by every maker other than Lexus.

To get a low overall rating, you'd have to suspect that Tesla must be producing a real stinker. But that's not true either.

The least reliable Tesla is more reliable than the least reliable vehicle produced by Kia, Lincoln, Hyundai, Nissan, Ford, Chevrolet, GMC, VW, Jeep and Mercedes.

Overall Tesla seems about the same as Volvo considering only their most and least reliable vehicles. But no doubt more attention to reliability would be very welcome.

Interesting that this is totally out of step with the TrueDelta data:

 

[wings&wheels]

e.ROFL.. Mercedes with only 2 models measured. Sure, this survey is statistically relevant.

Actually all this survey tells me is that the majority of their subscribers buy Toyotas and Fords.

This is key. Based upon the reporting by the population of CR's survey, the rankings are probably accurate, and they are probably not that far off as a whole. But, one needs to think about who would be completing the surveys (CR members?) and, specifically, what years and models they cover.

What is missing, as someone mentioned, is the satisfaction part. Many folks will gladly drive an appliance chosen for ultimate dispatch reliability and painless ownership, while others will sacrifice that to varying degrees for a more engaging experience.

Oh, and MB is only last because Land Rover isn't there

 

[wag123]

Just because there in no other source doesn’t mean this one is ok. That is NOT how things work. I write peer review articles for living. I reviewed them too as part of the job. I am not going to recommend something for publishing if methodology is questionable just bcs. there is nothing like that out there. The reason why there is no bulletproof reliability statistics out there is that this research to be done properly, it would cost huge amount of money. In my business we go after the grants to fund that. CR can’t do that as they are business, not academia where money is used for research. They have to make money. For them to do appropriate research would cost arm and leg that would never yield profit.
But, that doesn’t mean this is ok. Of course they can claim whatever they want, and you can get an orgasm looking at this data, but it is still junk.

Have you ever been sent and taken CR's survey? If not, you have no idea what you are talking about. They have a high percentage of PhD's on their staff and their surveys have always been very well done, well regarded, unbiased and valid IMO. Their written reports are NOT unbiased, but their survey is.
Furthermore, if you think Toyotas are so bad. why did you order another one?
Having lived in Madison and then Austin for 50 years I have been dealing with screwball college professors most of my life. They are very smart (in their own narrow little worlds) but they tend to look down their noses at everyone else and are more than a little bit off when it comes to common sense. You strike me as being a stereotypical one.

 

[ecotourist]

Interesting that this is totally out of step with the TrueDelta data:
View attachment 126914View attachment 126915

Interesting for sure.

I think the early Model 3s weren't as good as more recent ones which CR says are about average. For example some of the photos of early Model 3 fit and finish are pretty grim (wide panel gaps, orange peel paint, etc). But mine is pretty good (about the same as my Honda Accord EX-L which is also pretty good). Because of Tesla's rep for poor fit and finish I went over mine quite carefully before taking delivery and I have to say it's pretty good. As for reliability - it's been excellent so far (finger's crossed).

I like TrueDelta as well. I consider it another useful source.

Most vehicles today are quite reliable for at least the first 100,000 miles. The least reliable vehicles are even pretty good - though I still wouldn't buy a Nissan CVT. There's a big difference between annoying minor repairs and paying big bucks for a transmission replacement.

 

[JeffKeryk]

CR and TrueDelta are user surveys from members. They both suffer from sample size and unscientific methodology.
That doesn't mean they are wrong; it means they are incomplete and biased by membership.
At least TrueDelta does quaterly surverys vs CR's annual verions.

Both, along with JD Power, Edmunds, etc can be used but are not the be all end all.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

CR and TrueDelta are user surveys from members. They both suffer from sample size and unscientific methodology.
That doesn't mean they are wrong; it means they are incomplete and biased by membership.
At least TrueDelta does quaterly surverys vs CR's annual verions.

Both, along with JD Power, Edmunds, etc can be used but are not the be all end all.

Then there's the long term quality from Dashboard. This is the status and mileage of vehicles which show up at auction. Unfortunately like TrueDelta their numbers are dated

https://www.dashboard-light.com/

 

[BHopkins]

CR and TrueDelta are user surveys from members. They both suffer from sample size and unscientific methodology.
That doesn't mean they are wrong; it means they are incomplete and biased by membership.
At least TrueDelta does quaterly surverys vs CR's annual verions.

Both, along with JD Power, Edmunds, etc can be used but are not the be all end all.

JD Power is also survey based. I can't speak for Edmunds.

While I have always put more weight in CR reliability survey data that say, JDP who is paid by auto manufacturers, this year's data really throws me. How is it, that between the 2021 survey data and the 2022 survey data, the rank for BMW can go up 10, Lincoln can go up 14? Genesis goes up 9? And Chevrolet goes down 10?

Let's assume the survey data is accurate, and that the CR subscribers all provide honest data on their experiences with their cars. That means that that the latest survey data for BMW had to make several order of magnitude of improvement in new model years. Or the oldest model year, that was dropped off of the survey data, had terrible reliability reported. The same holds for all those that made such huge changes in scoring.

This alone really makes me question the validity of the data. Do with throw out data for all brands that had a change of greater than 5?

 

[SeaJay]

The whole exercise by CR doesn’t have any resemblance of validity. In actual research you must determine what is minimum generalizability of survey. In qualitatively methodological research for example minimum of 6 interviews can potentially give you generalizability. In quantitative research like this you must determine that (is it 6 cars? 8? 10?) and what is margin of error.
This doesn’t have any resemblance of seriousness.

All very valid points regarding the use and application of statistics. That being said, I am not terribly shocked at the approximate order, other than BMW that high and Mercedes that low.

 

[JeffKeryk]

If I understand the rankings, it scored MBZ on the basis of 2 models, or is that cars? Heck, I can throw a rock and hit more Benzes than that.
This article is garbage.

 

[wag123]

If I understand the rankings, it scored MBZ on the basis of 2 models, or is that cars? Heck, I can throw a rock and hit more Benzes than that.
This article is garbage.

The way that it works is that CR only uses the results of a model if they have enough survey returns for a given model. This applies to all manufacturer's models. In the case of Mercedes, they only received enough survey returns for two Mercedes models. What this tells me is that either most Mercedes owners do not subscribe to CR, or, most Mercedes owners that do subscribe do not take the time and trouble to fill out a survey.
CR does not specify which models they are basing their rating on. My guess is that, in the case of Mercedes, they are likely the two cheapest models, which also happens to be the two least reliable and most trouble-prone Mercedes models. If the E-Class were included the results would likely be different. In the case of BMW, the cheapest models tend to be just as reliable, and traditionally MORE reliable, than the higher-end models.

 

[edyvw]

The way that it works is that CR only uses the results of a model if they have enough survey returns for a given model. This applies to all manufacturer's models. In the case of Mercedes, they only received enough survey returns for two Mercedes models. What this tells me is that either most Mercedes owners do not subscribe to CR, or, most Mercedes owners that do subscribe do not take the time and trouble to fill out a survey.
CR does not specify which models they are basing their rating on. My guess is that, in the case of Mercedes, they are likely the two cheapest models, which also happens to be the two least reliable and most trouble-prone Mercedes models. If the E-Class were included the results would likely be different. In the case of BMW, the cheapest models tend to be just as reliable, and maybe MORE reliable (which has traditionally been the case), than the higher-end models.

Demographics is big issue in this. It is not only voluntary, but publication itself is appealing to certain audience.

 

[wag123]

Demographics is big issue in this. It is not only voluntary, but publication itself is appealing to certain audience.

Affirmative.
Demographics is an issue with EVERY survey (it is the same with polls). This is why I don't pay any attention to JD Power's "so-called" surveys. They are known to carefully select their survey recipients. They also word their surveys in such a way that they will get the results they are looking to get. JD Power is a for-profit company who sells their product to companies for advertising purposes. CR is a non-profit and does not allow companies to use their product.

 

[alarmguy]

The way that it works is that CR only uses the results of a model if they have enough survey returns for a given model. This applies to all manufacturer's models. In the case of Mercedes, they only received enough survey returns for two Mercedes models. What this tells me is that either most Mercedes owners do not subscribe to CR, or, most Mercedes owners that do subscribe do not take the time and trouble to fill out a survey.
CR does not specify which models they are basing their rating on. My guess is that, in the case of Mercedes, they are likely the two cheapest models, which also happens to be the two least reliable and most trouble-prone Mercedes models. If the E-Class were included the results would likely be different. In the case of BMW, the cheapest models tend to be just as reliable, and traditionally MORE reliable, than the higher-end models.

If one subscribes to consumer reports you will see which models of any car that enough survey responses were received and see the responses of the people that own them.
If one is considering a vehicle for many people CR certainly is a reliable source of information on a specific model that you may be considering and it will certainly be more accurate than what your next-door neighbor tells you. For the life of me I can’t understand some people discrediting the publication and use a criteria for purchasing a car other than sitting in it and liking it which is fine but some people go a step further.

Not directed at you in anyway but we live in a country where I bet the majority of people think Breyers is Ice Cream because they don’t read the label and they actually believe they are buying ice cream! LOL

In this case Consumer Reports states right in the OP that the surveys based only on models they received enough responses from. If you subscribe to the magazine or its publications one would know which models they are.

Most readings of consumer reports would look at a specific model and the 15 or so criteria that the car is actually scored with is what a typical reader would use fir information about the car.

The OP is simply a summary of models that they received responses on, certainly there can’t be a person in this forum that thinks otherwise?

I don’t know but for me and thousands of other people we are not going to buy a car that is known to have major transmission or engine problems or blown head gaskets, timing chain problems and any other expensive repairs.
The data on each specific model allows you to pick a car based on your wants and needs and it’s a heck of a lot more accurate than anything you here for someone you know.