Consumer Reports yanks Tesla's recommendation

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
As is often the case in these threads, a lot of people are showing some ignorance to what CR does.

You never read that Holman Jenkins article, did you? Thought not.

Here's the link again:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/consumer-reports-spends-its-juice-badly-1440803078


Actually, I read it back in August when it was new. It's an opinion piece, and he's welcome to his opinion. And, the link you're posting leads to a locked article that only subscribers can read.

Read again what I posted above.

CR isn't doing a 180 because the car still has its same high road test score and is still the highest-scoring car. The reliability surveys are a separate thing and they don't affect the road test score. The reliability surveys determine whether a car gets the "recommended" label from CR.

Quote:
Recommended cars meet Consumer Reports' stringent testing, reliability, and safety standards. To be recommended, cars must perform well in our more than 50 tests, have average or better predicted reliability; and perform adequately if included in a government or insurance industry crash test.


Any highly rated car by CR with average or above reliability and good crash scores automatically gets the "recommended" label.

The 2014 reliability surveys showed the Model S having "average" reliability, so it got the "recommended" label. More here:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/...ility/index.htm

The 2015 reliability surveys show the Model S having below average reliability, so it loses the "recommended" label.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I'm waiting for Model 3 introduction early next year, if Tesla reliability is dismal then I will looking for something else.

Do you really think that the Model 3 will still be released in early '16? Look how far behind they are on the Model X release, and they aren't even going to make large volume deliveries of it until early '16.

I suspect you have plenty more time to save up for your Model 3.

Early 2016 isn't a release date for Model 3, it is an introduction date of how it will look like and probably some preliminary specs and price.

The release/deliver date is estimated late 2017.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
People that buy Tesla's probably don't check CR first. Still very much a boutique market for folks with extra disposable income.

CR's pan of the model line is meaningless.

This is the first time CR reports Tesla reliability.

I'm a believer in more hightech features more chances for it to break.

I was wrong. This isn't the first time CR rated reliability of Tesla Model S, last year it was average and this year it is below average.

I'm sorry for my error.

 

[Andrew1972]

Seems like iPhone you throw away after warranty expires. Maybe gazelle will buy it back

The only way these will survive used is hobbyists or if tesla develops a refurbished/certified program with a warranty.

A real car company with dealer network with ability to train techs has to acquire tesla to have this survive. Tesla has not planned this out as they are a start up.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Don't care, I still think Range Rover and Maserati are great vehicles and CR doesn't like them either.

I rather drive a Tesla than a Prius.


I'll be sure and wave at you while you're sitting on the shoulder in an entertaining Maserati or Range Rover as I fly by in one of my boring but reliable fleet.
Entertainment value pales for any actual owner with a broken car.
Most would prefer to be in a Prius.



Ugh a Prius.

 

[440Magnum]

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."


For me, it was when they CONTINUALLY gave the Ford Panther platform black circles for "reliability" over a very long span of years. I mean seriously, guys, give it all the black circles you want for style, give it one for "being archaic" if you want, but one thing that platform had in boatloads was reliability!

CR is a waste of trees and electrons.

 

[HerrStig]

Wait until they release the "cheap" car for us prols.

 

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
For me, it was when they CONTINUALLY gave the Ford Panther platform black circles for "reliability" over a very long span of years. I mean seriously, guys, give it all the black circles you want for style, give it one for "being archaic" if you want, but one thing that platform had in boatloads was reliability!


Can you provide any links showing this to be the case?

I just checked and CR gives the last three years of the Crown Vic a "good" rating for reliability based on their owner reliability surveys.

If it used to have worse reliability scores, that would be because panther platform owners were reporting a higher rate of problems on the reliability surveys than owners of other vehicles.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
CR is a waste of trees and electrons.


Perfect. Except you can use it in puppy cages!

When they lost me was their prediction of reliability issues for a car that wasn't even sold yet. That was a bit much IMO. Many folks have questioned their so-called "surveys" as a great deal of info is unverified...

 

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

When they lost me was their prediction of reliability issues for a car that wasn't even sold yet. That was a bit much IMO.

Which car was it? Can you show where they said this?

I can see where they could have some information if it's a new trim level or version of an existing car.

EDIT - just did a quick Google search and CR has info available about their reliability ratings:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/understanding-reliability-ratings/index.htm
Quote:
For new-car buyers we provide a Predicted Reliability Rating that indicates how vehicles currently on sale are likely to hold up. To create these Ratings, Consumer Reports averages a model's Used Car Verdicts for the newest three model years, providing it wasn't significantly redesigned during that time. Predictions are made for some new models if the manufacturer's track record or the model's history has been consistently outstanding. All of these Ratings are included in the Reliability History charts and in the vehicle overviews


CR also frequently says a vehicle is too new to have reliability data. They don't offer reliability predictions on all new vehicles if they don't feel they have data to back it up.

For example, they did that here:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/04/consumer-reports-10-top-picks-of-2015/index.htm
Quote:
Where are the trucks?

Sharp-eyed readers may notice that there’s no Top Pick in the pickup-truck category. That is because the 2015 Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Colorado are too new to have reliability and testing data, and the Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra and Ram 1500 are not reliable enough. With such a thin field, we decided to pass until next year’s Ratings are in.

 

[Nate1979]

I think if Tesla does in fact turn out less than good reliability they will have big issues because it will tarnish their image which is so much of the appeal today. Especially if they want to bring a mainstream car where reliability is more important.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
As is often the case in these threads, a lot of people are showing some ignorance to what CR does.

You never read that Holman Jenkins article, did you? Thought not.

Here's the link again:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/consumer-reports-spends-its-juice-badly-1440803078


Actually, I read it back in August when it was new. It's an opinion piece, and he's welcome to his opinion.



Every word CR writes is "an opinion piece." With junk science and bad statistics thrown in for grins. It would make good comedy if people didn't actually make important decisions based on bogus information.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Don't care, I still think Range Rover and Maserati are great vehicles and CR doesn't like them either.

I rather drive a Tesla than a Prius.


I'll be sure and wave at you while you're sitting on the shoulder in an entertaining Maserati or Range Rover as I fly by in one of my boring but reliable fleet.
Entertainment value pales for any actual owner with a broken car.
Most would prefer to be in a Prius.



Ugh a Prius.



Say that while you're stuck somewhere with an entertaining ride on a below zero winter night watching dorks glide by in Priuses.
Simple reliability can often look awfully good, but then you need to understand that a car is primarily a transportation appliance and anything more is just foam on the beer.
You wanna have fun?
Build a track car and have at it.

 

[BHopkins]

Originally Posted By: super20dan
i stopped reading cu after buying a subaru in 02 and they were clueless about the headgasket issue and as for tesla-who puts out a 2 seat uber expencive sports electric car as their first model? some one who dosnt know the car market.


I'll say this as respectfully as I can, but seriously, those of you that trash talk CR for reliability ratings really need to get educated on the subject.

In a very real sense, CR never rates reliability. The subscriber does. Every reliability rating that CR publishes, whether it is for a car or a washing machine, is based upon data collected from consumers. Each year CR sends out surveys to their subscribers, and asks the consumer to report on their experience with different products. After all these surveys are collected, CR compiles them and does statistical analysis to determine reliability.

So next time you pick up a CR and look at reliability ratings (if you can get beyond your prejudices to do so), keep in mind that those ratings are based upon what your next door neighbor, and your co-worker, and your kid's teacher at school, and the teller at your bank, and yes, maybe even your brother-in-law or your mom, had to say about their car. So if you don't like what CR had to say about your favorite car, then don't be [censored] at CR. Go [censored] at your neighbor.

 

[Jarlaxle]

CR has a severe GIGO problem and has for years. I knew that they were worthless when I saw them rate identical cars-absolutely bolt-for-bolt identical, differentiated only by badging-differently.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins

I'll say this as respectfully as I can, but seriously, those of you that trash talk CR for reliability ratings really need to get educated on the subject.


Education is precisely WHY we trash talk CR. A little education quickly convinces you that it is, in fact, trash.

Jaraxle basically nailed the problem GIGO. Its all well and good for CR to say "our subscribers supply the data," but the truth is their subscribers are self-selected, either true believers in a brand or feeling scorned by a brand. The cases he refers to of bolt-for-bolt identical vehicles getting vastly different ratings (Geo Prizm vs Corolla, Honda Passport vs Isuzu Rodeo, for example) are classic examples of how the name brand preferred by CR subscribers biases the outcome. Toyota over GM in the case of the Corolla/Prizm, Honda over Isuzu even though Isuzu actually built the entire vehicle and the only Honda involvement was to rotate the Isuzu "I" 90 degrees to make the Honda "H".

As far as their own "tests" and research, those have been debunked and laughed at for decades.

The problem is, as much as I loathe CR there isn't any viable alternative other than a broad self-education on the design and implementation of a vehicle you're looking at- IOW look at many sources. No mechanism really exists to collect the amount of valid data (totally random, sufficient in quantity to be statistically representative, not biased by opinion or self-selection) to effectively rate products the way CR claims to do. Credit to them for a good idea, failing grade on every aspect of implementing it, and outright animosity for leading people down a primrose path to becoming true believers in a non-scientific method.

 

[Hootbro]

I can remember growing up around my Grandfather in the 1970's and 1980's. He was a loyal CR subscriber and literally just about any purchased was made based on the CR review and CR reliability ratings. After close to 20+ years, I remember him one day putting down the latest CR mag after reading it in his easy chair and saying "CR is BullSh!t!". He came to realize that his success rate and reliability of purchases at best matched at times 50% of what CR concluded. It was all statistical rubbish.

The biggest problem I have with CR is their methodology in how they weigh stuff for their reliability reports? People are more prone to rate and send in negative experience than those who have no issue and no reason to send in a survey. In the case of Tesla, how big is the pool of potential subscribers and how many actually participated?

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Don't care, I still think Range Rover and Maserati are great vehicles and CR doesn't like them either.

I rather drive a Tesla than a Prius.


I'll be sure and wave at you while you're sitting on the shoulder in an entertaining Maserati or Range Rover as I fly by in one of my boring but reliable fleet.
Entertainment value pales for any actual owner with a broken car.
Most would prefer to be in a Prius.



Ugh a Prius.



Say that while you're stuck somewhere with an entertaining ride on a below zero winter night watching dorks glide by in Priuses.
Simple reliability can often look awfully good, but then you need to understand that a car is primarily a transportation appliance and anything more is just foam on the beer.
You wanna have fun?
Build a track car and have at it.


Thanks for your concern but I have never been stuck on the side of the road.

 

[fdcg27]

Give it time.
I can promise you that it'll happen sooner or later.
You just need enough years and miles of potential.
Any pedestrian unbreakable can look pretty good when it happens.

 

[stephen9666]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
CR has a severe GIGO problem and has for years. I knew that they were worthless when I saw them rate identical cars-absolutely bolt-for-bolt identical, differentiated only by badging-differently.


Can you provide links showing this to be true? Someone claimed that in another thread and when I looked it up CR acknowledged when models were largely the same.