Consumer Reports vehicle rankings

[supton]

I loved the vehicle books from the 90s, all those black dots and red dots. The poor Chevy Astro didnt deserve all that red.

I dunno, my parents had an '87, and it needed an engine at 127k as it couldn't go 100 miles without needing another quart of oil. That and the rear axle seals. Then there was the crash safety... idler arms and probably a few other things.

I'd probably snap one up though if I could find a cheap rust free one. Ours did make at least 250k, and when I say it was used by at least 3 teen boy drivers, I mean to say "it was beaten half to death" in the nicest of ways. And it seemed to not care, and was sold in driving condition. And despite living in Maine for 10 years it was relatively rust free. Take that Toyota.

 

[Nessism1]

I like consumers report. And JD Powers, particularly their dependability survey. They are far from foolproof, but if they rate something good, it's better than if they rate something bad. You just have to balance their review with others. In terms of reliability, they simply report what their subscribers say. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[MParr]

Subaru hater? No.
Consumer Reports hater? Yes.

 

[Burt]

The whole basis of using "Brand name" as a differentiator is flawed. Is a Buick really more reliable than a Chevrolet? Does slapping a different logon on a vehicle improve your chances of having fewer problems? They are made by the same corporation. The main difference is the mix of vehicles within the brand. Chevrolet sells trucks and large SUV's, Buick does not. Some vehicles in a brand may be old, simple, proven designs and others new, unproven and complicated. Toyota sells a Supra made by BMW. Buick imports some cars from China. Some cars have CVT's or other problematic features, others don't.

CR lumps them all together and suggests you should make decisions on labeling. Shame on them for misleading people.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The have $240 million revenue from 6 million subscriptions(~$40 each), and 600 employees, so they have quite a decent budget to buy products, maybe $100 million a year?
I don't think they are the only source of good car info but they seem pretty independent to me. Their long term reliability scores are from subscriber surveys of actual repairs done, not their brand perceptions or other stuff marketers would be interested in.

That's a captured group, which is by definition poor survey selection.
CR brand ranking makes no sense; why does a brand move so far from year to year? They test models, perhaps different models every year. From a brand standpoint, this produces scattered results at best. Hardly meaningful.

Calling CR reporting analytics is a joke.

 

[dishdude]

That's a captured group, which is by definition poor survey selection.
CR brand ranking makes no sense; why does a brand move so far from year to year? They test models, perhaps different models every year. From a brand standpoint, this produces scattered results at best. Hardly meaningful.

Calling CR reporting analytics is a joke.

And the survey they send their subscribers. I don't know if it's changed, but there used to be like 30 categories you'd mark major, minor or no problem for. If you've ever talked to a family member or coworker that has their car in for repair, they sound totally clueless. Can't imagine one of them filling that survey out with any degree of accuracy.

 

[earthbound]

That is about as useful to me as JD Power's "Initial Quality" ratings.

I've bought a few items from CR's top list, like a Samsung refrigerator. It had 8 icemaker replacements in the 5 years I owned it. Good thing I got the extended warranty. Once it broke outside the warranty, I had to replace it.

Yep, JDP and CR...taken with a big grain of salt...

 

[Al]

Subaru hater? No.
Consumer Reports hater? Yes.

Yea probably true...lol.

I probably trolled this thread..

 

[RaymondP]

Just read a similar article (Consumer Reports?) on 10-year cost of ownership concluding German cars have the highest cost of ownership. Maybe true based on their parts replacement and dealership repair and maintenance costs. However, if you want to stay with a German brand, shop parts and do all the basic maintenance and repairs yourself, I think their cars are reasonably affordable in terms of cost of ownership.

Acknowledging they did have a reputation for being overly complex (over-engineered?) but given their drive and ride qualities I am willing to put the extra time and effort into ownership. Referring specifically to Mercedes Benz, BMW, VW and Porsche. Usually get well over twelve years of joyful driving/ownership with them and then donate or trade-in. Understand others may not want to retain their vehicles for that length of time, but the car buying experience is no longer fun. If I can defer I will!

 

[wag123]

Now they've started on their CVT and been at that for 14 years, and are getting that figured out.

Negative.
Subaru was the first car manufacturer to produce and sell a car in the US with a CVT automatic way back in 1987. This transmission was the basis for the JATCO/Nissan CVT as Nissan owned controlling interest in Subaru at that time.

 

[Nessism1]

Negative.
Subaru was the first car manufacturer to produce and sell a car in the US with a CVT automatic way back in 1987. This transmission was the basis for the JATCO/Nissan CVT as Nissan owned controlling interest in Subaru at that time.

To my knowledge, Subaru has never been "owned" by anyone, other than Fuji Heavy Industries. Nissan and Toyota have a stake, shares as it were, but nether are close to controlling interest.

 

[IndyIan]

That's a captured group, which is by definition poor survey selection.
CR brand ranking makes no sense; why does a brand move so far from year to year? They test models, perhaps different models every year. From a brand standpoint, this produces scattered results at best. Hardly meaningful.

Calling CR reporting analytics is a joke.

Have you seen and reviewed their methodology? I haven't bothered to look into it, I kind of assume since they aren't sponsored by anyone that they are pretty unbiased?
Yep, for sure there is some bias in the sample group, and CR will probably never know if a Dodge Hellcat has perfect reliability as that isn't the demographic of their subscribers.
I do agree that the most reliable brand is a bit of a useless metric, but people make lots of purchasing decisions on useless metrics... And I guess if your car research time is 23 seconds, then starting off with a "reliable" brand is better than nothing....
I would assume they aren't just pulling numbers out of the air through, and have a few people with some statistical background to ensure what they are doing means something, otherwise they would be getting sued?

I did buy a set of snow tires entirely based on CR as they aren't a brand that gets tested often elsewhere, and so far they seem to be right on, and I've had a several of the other snow tires they've tested and my findings seem to match theirs, and same with cars, my experiences seem to be pretty close to what they have reported.

I'm sure CR isn't perfect, but they seem to get it mostly right in my experience.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Have you seen and reviewed their methodology? I haven't bothered to look into it, I kind of assume since they aren't sponsored by anyone that they are pretty unbiased?
Yep, for sure there is some bias in the sample group, and CR will probably never know if a Dodge Hellcat has perfect reliability as that isn't the demographic of their subscribers.
I do agree that the most reliable brand is a bit of a useless metric, but people make lots of purchasing decisions on useless metrics... And I guess if your car research time is 23 seconds, then starting off with a "reliable" brand is better than nothing....
I would assume they aren't just pulling numbers out of the air through, and have a few people with some statistical background to ensure what they are doing means something, otherwise they would be getting sued?

I did buy a set of snow tires entirely based on CR as they aren't a brand that gets tested often elsewhere, and so far they seem to be right on, and I've had a several of the other snow tires they've tested and my findings seem to match theirs, and same with cars, my experiences seem to be pretty close to what they have reported.

I'm sure CR isn't perfect, but they seem to get it mostly right in my experience.

Their findings are statistically weak at best.
Their reporting of their findings are worse. Metrics need to be well defined and appropriate. The glaring example is "reliability". Poorly defined and CR throws everything into it. Do panel gaps affect reliability?

They need to explain why a poorly scoring vehicle performs strongly in customer satisfaction and vice versa.

 

[wag123]

To my knowledge, Subaru has never been "owned" by anyone, other than Fuji Heavy Industries. Nissan and Toyota have a stake, shares as it were, but nether are close to controlling interest.

Controlling interest works differently in Japan then it does in the US. In Japan a single shareholder who holds a significant portion of voting rights (usually the largest single shareholder) can take control of a company (controlling interest). In Japan, depending on the company, this amounts to a 16% to 20% ownership stake to gain controlling interest.
Nissan held a 20.7% stake (controlling interest) in Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru's parent company) from 1968 until 1999. Nissan sold its stake to General Motors when it got in trouble, then GM sold it's stake to Toyota when they got in trouble. You could literally see the Toyota DNA in Subaru's newly redesigned vehicles beginning in 2008. To their credit Nissan, GM, and Toyota have largely left Subaru alone and allowed them to operate independently and without significant interference because year after year Subaru has sold all the vehicles it produces and makes a good profit doing so. Subaru also boasts the highest customer loyalty of any auto manufacturer, and has for many years. Subaru has been an asset to each of these companies, enough so that they were worth a significant amount of money each time they changed hands. Notice how Subaru was the only company that GM was able to sell when they got in trouble? They couldn't sell any other company and walked away from them, only a couple of which survive to this day (Suzuki and Isuzu, Toyota owns a 5% stake in each of them, not a controlling interest).
Other facts...
Fuji Heavy Industries changed their name to Subaru Corporation in 2017. Subaru Corporation is officially part of the Toyota Motor Group. Nissan does not own any portion of Subaru Corporation, although there are still some Nissan produced parts in some Subaru models to this day. Subaru currently uses JATCO developed Lineartronic CVT automatic transmissions but manufactures them in their own factory.

 

[Frankrank]

I gave up my subscription 5 years ago. About that time they started publishing articles on how to protest with antifa and how not to get caught by the police. They are totally on board with electric vehicles, carbon footprint and vaccines but never give a counterpoint like 25 years ago. Most local libraries give free digital access so when I need a new toaster I'll use it.

 

[MParr]

I gave up my subscription 5 years ago. About that time they started publishing articles on how to protest with antifa and how not to get caught by the police. They are totally on board with electric vehicles, carbon footprint and vaccines but never give a counterpoint like 25 years ago. Most local libraries give free digital access so when I need a new toaster I'll use it.

What took you so long? I gave up my subscription 20+ years ago. Everything that I bought, based on their recommendations, never performed well for me. They were already blazing the woke trail at that time.

 

[fdcg27]

CR is the only publicly available source of information on vehicles that has no dog in the fight.
They buy the vehicles they test incognito, rather than getting carefully messaged press loaners.
They aren't trolling for ad revenue and they don't allow makers to use their recommendations in any advertisement.
Their reliability ratings are the best you'll get without access to a large fleet database nobody here has.
I don't think we have any legitimate critique of CR as a rater of cars.

 

[JeffKeryk]

CR is the only publicly available source of information on vehicles that has no dog in the fight.
They buy the vehicles they test incognito, rather than getting carefully messaged press loaners.
They aren't trolling for ad revenue and they don't allow makers to use their recommendations in any advertisement.
Their reliability ratings are the best you'll get without access to a large fleet database nobody here has.
I don't think we have any legitimate critique of CR as a rater of cars.

I agree the subscriber supported model is far better than the advertisement model regarding objectivity.
I also enoumerated several issues with their methodology.

Can you tell me third definition for reliability? I can't.

 

[TomYoung]

The whole basis of using "Brand name" as a differentiator is flawed. Is a Buick really more reliable than a Chevrolet? Does slapping a different logon on a vehicle improve your chances of having fewer problems? They are made by the same corporation. The main difference is the mix of vehicles within the brand. Chevrolet sells trucks and large SUV's, Buick does not. Some vehicles in a brand may be old, simple, proven designs and others new, unproven and complicated. Toyota sells a Supra made by BMW. Buick imports some cars from China. Some cars have CVT's or other problematic features, others don't.

CR lumps them all together and suggests you should make decisions on labeling. Shame on them for misleading people.

Shame on you for this misguided and fundamentally flawed argument. To begin with, there are numerous brands, themselves business corporations, with GM. That there are different cars, of multiple designs and origins in a division is true, but that does not imply that the division can’t control quality. I don’t think we can accept your blanket assertion that CVTs are problematic across the board. I am not exactly a CR fan, but let’s give them credit for singling out Toyota (and Lexus) as a purveyor of fine, reliable cars.

 

[Burt]

Shame on you for this misguided and fundamentally flawed argument. To begin with, there are numerous brands, themselves business corporations, with GM. That there are different cars, of multiple designs and origins in a division is true, but that does not imply that the division can’t control quality. I don’t think we can accept your blanket assertion that CVTs are problematic across the board. I am not exactly a CR fan, but let’s give them credit for singling out Toyota (and Lexus) as a purveyor of fine, reliable cars.

Pray tell, how does Toyota control the quality of a Supra that is based on BMW equipment? If what you say is true, why does quality vary greatly across models and from year to year? Why would a Nova made at the same factory as a Corolla be deemed a less reliable vehicle just because it has a different label? Pardon me for not adding a qualifier “certain” CVT’s.

CR does doesn’t rank corporations that manufacture cars. It ranks brands. Reliability of particular models is more meaningful than brands.