You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Consumer Reports yanks Tesla's recommendation
- Thread starter Nate1979
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Can you provide any links?
It would be interesting to see the old scores and articles to see if your memory is correct. Most of those are too old to have info still available, but the Prizm/Corolla were in fact acknowledged to be the same car. They were both on CR's best buy list.
A newer example is the Vibe/Matrix, where CR acknowledged the cars were the same. Their reliability scores are virtually identical:
Quote:
The Pontiac Vibe and its twin, the Toyota Matrix, are tall wagons based on the Toyota Corolla. The Vibe’s compact dimensions, versatile interior, and good fuel economy make it a handy, nimble, economical runabout. However, a flawed driving position and a boomy engine detract. The Vibe is the only vehicle in this group available with all-wheel-drive. It has been very reliable.
Here's also a TTAC article on the topic:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/08/unraveling-the-mystery-of-consumer-reports-brand-spread/
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Can you provide any links?
It would be interesting to see the old scores and articles to see if your memory is correct. Most of those are too old to have info still available, but the Prizm/Corolla were in fact acknowledged to be the same car. They were both on CR's best buy list.
A newer example is the Vibe/Matrix, where CR acknowledged the cars were the same. Their reliability scores are virtually identical:
Quote:
The Pontiac Vibe and its twin, the Toyota Matrix, are tall wagons based on the Toyota Corolla. The Vibe’s compact dimensions, versatile interior, and good fuel economy make it a handy, nimble, economical runabout. However, a flawed driving position and a boomy engine detract. The Vibe is the only vehicle in this group available with all-wheel-drive. It has been very reliable.
Here's also a TTAC article on the topic:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/08/unraveling-the-mystery-of-consumer-reports-brand-spread/
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Or perhaps the customers that shopped those vehicles maintained them differently. For example: The Toyota owner always follows the maintenance schedule to the letter while the Geo changes the oil whenever the oil light comes on, etc. Or the Buick owner was the little old lady that baby the car while the Pontiac driver bought into the performance image and hot rodded it.
But it's a start at the data and the reliability ratings are about the only thing I trust from CR. Especially since they tend to jive with other sources like JD Power, TrueDelta, etc.
Seems to me that those that don't like CR's reliability ratings are the ones driving cars that they rate poorly.
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Or perhaps the customers that shopped those vehicles maintained them differently. For example: The Toyota owner always follows the maintenance schedule to the letter while the Geo changes the oil whenever the oil light comes on, etc. Or the Buick owner was the little old lady that baby the car while the Pontiac driver bought into the performance image and hot rodded it.
But it's a start at the data and the reliability ratings are about the only thing I trust from CR. Especially since they tend to jive with other sources like JD Power, TrueDelta, etc.
Seems to me that those that don't like CR's reliability ratings are the ones driving cars that they rate poorly.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Or perhaps the customers that shopped those vehicles maintained them differently. For example: The Toyota owner always follows the maintenance schedule to the letter while the Geo changes the oil whenever the oil light comes on, etc. Or the Buick owner was the little old lady that baby the car while the Pontiac driver bought into the performance image and hot rodded it.
If you need to resort into that kind of fantasy to defend CRs obvious bull, be my guest... but I politely decline and stick to Occam's razor- the simple explanation is the right one.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
But it's a start at the data and the reliability ratings are about the only thing I trust from CR. Especially since they tend to jive with other sources like JD Power, TrueDelta, etc.
Of course they jive, because they all suffer the same corruption of the input data (self-selected reporting by true believers or bitterly disappointed buyers).
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Seems to me that those that don't like CR's reliability ratings are the ones driving cars that they rate poorly.
Sure, it might seem that way, but its more likely that people who snort at CR buy a wide variety of vehicles, whereas the kool-aid drinkers follow the CR recommendation religiously. A clear example of one set being truly random and the other self-selected to a consistent viewpoint, and therefore statistical irrelevance.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Off the top of my head, I recall the Sable and Taurus got different reliability ratings for a while. Rodeo/Passport, Corolla/Prism, and several GM A-bodies (Century, Ciera, 6000) got different ratings and reliability scores.
Or perhaps the customers that shopped those vehicles maintained them differently. For example: The Toyota owner always follows the maintenance schedule to the letter while the Geo changes the oil whenever the oil light comes on, etc. Or the Buick owner was the little old lady that baby the car while the Pontiac driver bought into the performance image and hot rodded it.
If you need to resort into that kind of fantasy to defend CRs obvious bull, be my guest... but I politely decline and stick to Occam's razor- the simple explanation is the right one.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
But it's a start at the data and the reliability ratings are about the only thing I trust from CR. Especially since they tend to jive with other sources like JD Power, TrueDelta, etc.
Of course they jive, because they all suffer the same corruption of the input data (self-selected reporting by true believers or bitterly disappointed buyers).
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Seems to me that those that don't like CR's reliability ratings are the ones driving cars that they rate poorly.
Sure, it might seem that way, but its more likely that people who snort at CR buy a wide variety of vehicles, whereas the kool-aid drinkers follow the CR recommendation religiously. A clear example of one set being truly random and the other self-selected to a consistent viewpoint, and therefore statistical irrelevance.
Haw, looks like a smoker to me. Good post^^^
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
I've never had a high opinion of CR. I lost what little respected I had for them when they reviewed a 4th gen Camaro SS and said the "exhaust was too loud and we would prefer it be quieter."
IIRC, they also complained about the brutal acceleration of the last gen Firebird. It scared them.
Seriously, why would anyone care what CR thinks about a car?
I've never had a high opinion of CR. I lost what little respected I had for them when they reviewed a 4th gen Camaro SS and said the "exhaust was too loud and we would prefer it be quieter."
IIRC, they also complained about the brutal acceleration of the last gen Firebird. It scared them.
Seriously, why would anyone care what CR thinks about a car?
CR's opinion/test car is different with reliability survey.
CR is also by NO MEANS above spec'ing out test cars so as to rig a comparison. I recall one of the first I noticed it on about 20 years ago, a "sporty car" comparo of a Celica GT, a Miata, and V6 and GT Mustangs. (That's a pretty weird mix, but anyway...) The Celica and Miata were 5-speeds...but they got automatics in both Mustangs.
They panned the GT for its sticker price, not mentioning the fact that they had loaded it to the roof with every bell and whistle available, from power leather seats with lumbar to keyless entry to the Mach 460 stereo. They also panned it for the Mach 460 sub and amp eating trunk space...but the fact the Miata's rear-accessed glove box (that Mazda, laughably, calls a trunk) barely held a briefcase was not even mentioned!
They then panned the V6 for NOT having all the bells and whistles of the GT (Am/FM, manual cloth seats, though I recall it did have ABS and power windows/locks), but didn't even mention the fact it was (IIRC) the least expensive of the four.
I also recall that in a sports car test, they almost always got Corvettes with automatics...even if all the other cars tested were standard shift.
They panned the GT for its sticker price, not mentioning the fact that they had loaded it to the roof with every bell and whistle available, from power leather seats with lumbar to keyless entry to the Mach 460 stereo. They also panned it for the Mach 460 sub and amp eating trunk space...but the fact the Miata's rear-accessed glove box (that Mazda, laughably, calls a trunk) barely held a briefcase was not even mentioned!
They then panned the V6 for NOT having all the bells and whistles of the GT (Am/FM, manual cloth seats, though I recall it did have ABS and power windows/locks), but didn't even mention the fact it was (IIRC) the least expensive of the four.
I also recall that in a sports car test, they almost always got Corvettes with automatics...even if all the other cars tested were standard shift.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
If you need to resort into that kind of fantasy to defend CRs obvious bull, be my guest... but I politely decline and stick to Occam's razor- the simple explanation is the right one.
How so? It follows that the more you spend on something the more likely you are to take care of it. Do you see more junked out Lexuses or Corollas? I know if I spend $10 on a widget it's disposable to me. But crank that up to $100 I'm more willing to take care of it.
It follows that someone buying a "premium" product (say a Toyota over a Geo) will take better care of it than someone purchasing the downmarket equivalent. Or someone buying a Pontiac (We Build Excitement) would be more likely to drive their vehicle harder than a Buick owner (average age of what, 60+).
Quote:
Of course they jive, because they all suffer the same corruption of the input data (self-selected reporting by true believers or bitterly disappointed buyers).
So I spend $20-50k on a new vehicle. What would my incentive to report it being a POS would there be? IOW why would I lie and say my vehicle was a POS if it was not?
So how would you do reliability testing? JD Powers sends out random samples and they report about the same things as CR. CR doesn't publish the % of surveys they get back so the distribution is not known. TrueDelta is self-selected but even it says about the same thing as the other 2.
The only way to truly do it would be to track parts sales or actual repair rates either from dealers or independents.
Seems that those that like the low reliability cars are always the ones that think all reliability surveys are bunk. I think they are in a lot of Denial (and not the river in Egypt).
IMHO their reviews are garbage but the reliability stats are about as good as it gets.
If you need to resort into that kind of fantasy to defend CRs obvious bull, be my guest... but I politely decline and stick to Occam's razor- the simple explanation is the right one.
How so? It follows that the more you spend on something the more likely you are to take care of it. Do you see more junked out Lexuses or Corollas? I know if I spend $10 on a widget it's disposable to me. But crank that up to $100 I'm more willing to take care of it.
It follows that someone buying a "premium" product (say a Toyota over a Geo) will take better care of it than someone purchasing the downmarket equivalent. Or someone buying a Pontiac (We Build Excitement) would be more likely to drive their vehicle harder than a Buick owner (average age of what, 60+).
Quote:
Of course they jive, because they all suffer the same corruption of the input data (self-selected reporting by true believers or bitterly disappointed buyers).
So I spend $20-50k on a new vehicle. What would my incentive to report it being a POS would there be? IOW why would I lie and say my vehicle was a POS if it was not?
So how would you do reliability testing? JD Powers sends out random samples and they report about the same things as CR. CR doesn't publish the % of surveys they get back so the distribution is not known. TrueDelta is self-selected but even it says about the same thing as the other 2.
The only way to truly do it would be to track parts sales or actual repair rates either from dealers or independents.
Seems that those that like the low reliability cars are always the ones that think all reliability surveys are bunk. I think they are in a lot of Denial (and not the river in Egypt).
IMHO their reviews are garbage but the reliability stats are about as good as it gets.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
A Sample of 1 is not good at all. Even 100 of your friends is not a good sample. The facts are the experiences of many more than you or 440Magnum or the 10 or so Mopar lovers here show Mopars are junk. Ignore all the stats all you want but it doesn't change the facts that owners report them as garbage.
Maybe all you with this Mopar love should join CR and skew the results! It only costs $12/year: CR Subscription at Amazon. Cause it sure seems your position is not being well represented.
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
A Sample of 1 is not good at all. Even 100 of your friends is not a good sample. The facts are the experiences of many more than you or 440Magnum or the 10 or so Mopar lovers here show Mopars are junk. Ignore all the stats all you want but it doesn't change the facts that owners report them as garbage.
Maybe all you with this Mopar love should join CR and skew the results! It only costs $12/year: CR Subscription at Amazon. Cause it sure seems your position is not being well represented.
Last edited:
Quote:
John Rosevear:
Here's what we have learned: It's really hard to build a car to global standards of reliability and performance at a profit.
But it's one thing to sell a six-figure car that isn't as reliable as a Toyota. (Ferrari sales don't seem to suffer from reliability concerns.) It's another thing entirely when you're trying to compete directly with Toyota -- or with BMW.
Travis Hoium:
What the report brings up is how incredibly hard it is to build a reliable car and how difficult it is to do it in a timely, cost-effective manner.
The true challenge will be seen when the Model 3 is released, sometime in the next two to five years. Tesla has indicated that it will sell the Model 3 starting for about $35,000, a price that would compete with many conventional vehicles today, and will be making them by the hundreds of thousands. But if Tesla can't make a $100,000 car that doesn't have "squeak, rattles, and leaks" as Consumer Reports is stating, how can we expect Tesla to make hundreds of thousands of Model 3s for a low price and high quality?
Making cars is hard, and Tesla may not be as far ahead of its global competitors as Elon Musk and Wall Street would have you think. In fact, Tesla Motors hasn't yet proven that it's a high-quality manufacturer at all.
Daniel Miller:
For instance, the most common complaint -- though there were some more serious one -- was overall squeaks and rattles annoying drivers of the Model S. However, as one person noted to Consumer Reports, "The car is so very silent when driving that minor squeaks and rattles that you wouldn't be able to hear in a gasoline engine car become very annoying."
If you're willing to pay $70,000 for a fully electric vehicle that, in some trims, can beat high-end sports cars in a quarter-mile race and your largest complaint is noise, because the car's ride is so quiet without a combustion engine, I think you'll be satisfied with your purchase overall.
That sentiment seems to be felt among Tesla Model S consumers -- albeit, with consumers mostly being early adopters, and more strongly pro Tesla, at this point. "Despite the problems, our data show that Tesla owner satisfaction is still very high: Ninety-seven percent of owners said they would definitely buy their car again," said Consumer Reports.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...ampaign=article[size:11pt][/size]
R&D&Engineering seems easy but manufacture/assembly is another story. Manufacturing a reliable vehicle at reasonable cost is so difficult and so far only Toyota can master that.
John Rosevear:
Here's what we have learned: It's really hard to build a car to global standards of reliability and performance at a profit.
But it's one thing to sell a six-figure car that isn't as reliable as a Toyota. (Ferrari sales don't seem to suffer from reliability concerns.) It's another thing entirely when you're trying to compete directly with Toyota -- or with BMW.
Travis Hoium:
What the report brings up is how incredibly hard it is to build a reliable car and how difficult it is to do it in a timely, cost-effective manner.
The true challenge will be seen when the Model 3 is released, sometime in the next two to five years. Tesla has indicated that it will sell the Model 3 starting for about $35,000, a price that would compete with many conventional vehicles today, and will be making them by the hundreds of thousands. But if Tesla can't make a $100,000 car that doesn't have "squeak, rattles, and leaks" as Consumer Reports is stating, how can we expect Tesla to make hundreds of thousands of Model 3s for a low price and high quality?
Making cars is hard, and Tesla may not be as far ahead of its global competitors as Elon Musk and Wall Street would have you think. In fact, Tesla Motors hasn't yet proven that it's a high-quality manufacturer at all.
Daniel Miller:
For instance, the most common complaint -- though there were some more serious one -- was overall squeaks and rattles annoying drivers of the Model S. However, as one person noted to Consumer Reports, "The car is so very silent when driving that minor squeaks and rattles that you wouldn't be able to hear in a gasoline engine car become very annoying."
If you're willing to pay $70,000 for a fully electric vehicle that, in some trims, can beat high-end sports cars in a quarter-mile race and your largest complaint is noise, because the car's ride is so quiet without a combustion engine, I think you'll be satisfied with your purchase overall.
That sentiment seems to be felt among Tesla Model S consumers -- albeit, with consumers mostly being early adopters, and more strongly pro Tesla, at this point. "Despite the problems, our data show that Tesla owner satisfaction is still very high: Ninety-seven percent of owners said they would definitely buy their car again," said Consumer Reports.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...ampaign=article[size:11pt][/size]
R&D&Engineering seems easy but manufacture/assembly is another story. Manufacturing a reliable vehicle at reasonable cost is so difficult and so far only Toyota can master that.
Last edited:
It did not happen with Consumer Reports, but electric Tesla is only car to ever have stopped working on the test track in the middle of a review.
And it has likwly been mentioned before that Consumer Reports as a publication is extremely suspect. Their testing methodologies were questionable in a few infamous scenarios, but their changing opinions year by year of the rebates make them less than credible, as well.
They do put everything in a very simple format.
And it has likwly been mentioned before that Consumer Reports as a publication is extremely suspect. Their testing methodologies were questionable in a few infamous scenarios, but their changing opinions year by year of the rebates make them less than credible, as well.
They do put everything in a very simple format.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
A Sample of 1 is not good at all. Even 100 of your friends is not a good sample. The facts are the experiences of many more than you or 440Magnum or the 10 or so Mopar lovers here show Mopars are junk. Ignore all the stats all you want but it doesn't change the facts that owners report them as garbage.
Maybe all you with this Mopar love should join CR and skew the results! It only costs $12/year: CR Subscription at Amazon. Cause it sure seems your position is not being well represented.
You're still ranting? Sorry, but you can wave your stats proudly all you want. Plenty of folks know what CR is, and really I could care less about anyone else's car.
I have never kept a new car this long. And I live just fine without your stats! Or CR's....
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Many time I have had to listen as itguy08 lectured on his hate for Mopars and he had all the stats to back him up. Yet my personal experience and many others here is not consistent with those stats.
CR=Bah! Who cares. Buy what interests you and enjoy it...
A Sample of 1 is not good at all. Even 100 of your friends is not a good sample. The facts are the experiences of many more than you or 440Magnum or the 10 or so Mopar lovers here show Mopars are junk. Ignore all the stats all you want but it doesn't change the facts that owners report them as garbage.
Maybe all you with this Mopar love should join CR and skew the results! It only costs $12/year: CR Subscription at Amazon. Cause it sure seems your position is not being well represented.
You're still ranting? Sorry, but you can wave your stats proudly all you want. Plenty of folks know what CR is, and really I could care less about anyone else's car.
I have never kept a new car this long. And I live just fine without your stats! Or CR's....
You'd think with Toyota's stake in Tesla that they'd build a decent car.
Looks like Lexus has gotten the crown back from CR, but then again the original LS400 got recalled.
Looks like Lexus has gotten the crown back from CR, but then again the original LS400 got recalled.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 123
- Views
- 9K
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 20K