More Consumer Reports nonsense, IMO

[alarmguy]

CR is OK for what it is; it is hard to get objective data. All I am saying is, CR does not report statistically valid results.
So take it for what it's worth.

I only response would be what other source would one use?
No one reports statistically valid results in that case however, consumer reports has the largest pool of user experience.

I find the the user experience of products as feedback is very significant.
For instance, I don’t use the magazine solely to choose a car. I use the magazine to read what to expect from the different devices on the car.
I’m sure anybody would rethink a decision to buy a certain vehicle if in consumer reports it shows that vehicle has significant transmission problems or engine problems.
I’m not sure how this information could be denied because it is the only source of information with such a significant amount of feedback from actual purchasers of these products.

as a sidenote, ever since my latest Apple update the voice to text has been wonky so if you see any wonky posts, it’s because I missed correcting that one.
I’m getting an insane amount of speech to text that doubles up at what I’m saying.
meaning it repeats when I’m posting two times in the same post go figure

 

[fdcg27]

I only response would be what other source would one use?

While I rarely agree with this poster, I do in this case.
As I've written before in other threads, aside from large fleet databases, to which none of us has access as well as manufacturer's service data that we'll never see, CR is as good as it gets.
CR is not trolling for free press cars, since they buy the ones they test and they aren't influenced by potential ad revenue since they don't have any.
CR is the most valid source of information we have access to in evaluating the wisdom of a car purchase. Doesn't mean that one should limit themselves to the check rated darlings, just means that he should be aware of the potential pitfalls of whatever he might be contemplating buying.

 

[D60]

The last time I read CR (I was a kid and "into cars"), reliability ratings got dinged for any recall or visit to the dealer. 90% of recalls are unnecessary and don't actually affect reliability. I had an '05 Canyon with an early recall for a "potential" problem with the BOO. Never took it in and the brake lights always worked fine for 70k miles.

Also when I was a kid the vehicle with the most cupholders would rank higher than a clearly better vehicle with fewer cupholders. Even as a youngster that told me their metrics are skin deep.

I'd like to see one of their testers swap an alternator. If you can't do that, I don't need your opinion about anything vehicle related. Sorry, not sorry

 

[Skippy722]

The last time I read CR (I was a kid and "into cars"), reliability ratings got dinged for any recall or visit to the dealer. 90% of recalls are unnecessary and don't actually affect reliability. I had an '05 Canyon with an early recall for a "potential" problem with the BOO. Never took it in and the brake lights always worked fine for 70k miles.

Also when I was a kid the vehicle with the most cupholders would rank higher than a clearly better vehicle with fewer cupholders. Even as a youngster that told me their metrics are skin deep.

I'd like to see one of their testers swap an alternator. If you can't do that, I don't need your opinion about anything vehicle related. Sorry, not sorry

I remember when they praised the VW Routan but slammed the Grand Caravan/T&C. That’s when I lost all respect for CR.

 

[Eddie]

Generally very good data compared to only me and my neighbor.

 

[ryster]

I have a buddy who buys only Chevrolet’s and typically buys them in the first year of their generation/redesign. He is currently on his 4th EQUINOX and has had no issues with any of them. And I personally think(in my experience) the Equinox’s drive better than their competitors including the CR-V & CX5.

Before that my buddy had VENTURE minivans. And before that, he’s had too many Chevy’s to list including vehicles during the malaise era.

I typically buy Japanese vehicles (and get this) in the 3rd model year of a specific generation when the bugs should be gone, and have had more issues in the past 40 years than my Chevy driving buddy.

We’ve had Honda, Mazda, Nissan & Toyota/Lexus and though none were disastrous…would you like to know which of them has been the most reliable in a 11-15+ years of ownership? Actually the LEXUS was disappointing. And at least 50% of my Japanese vehicles came from Japan and these were the most problematic. But still better than my personal experiences with domestic vehicles.

SURPRISE!
Nissan vehicles have been the least problematic for us including their CVTs…What does this tell us?

I am approaching the 10th year of ownership of my 2015 3.6L V6 Equinox. The only thing keeping me from buying another is the 1.5L 4cyl turbo engine in the new ones. The 2.0L turbo would be nice, but in typical GM fashion they eliminated that option a few years ago due to "low take rate". That was the same reason they gave for not offering a V6 for 2018+ models. It's hard for a lot of people to possibly buy one with an upgraded engine when only 2 in every 10 were made with the upgraded engine. Thanks GM.

Now I am considering either the new Traverse or a new Explorer.

 

[Silverado12]

The only cars I've never had any issue with in the first 5 years were a 2018 Mustang GT I bought new and my 2012 Silverado I bought new in 2012. Even the new Cadillac had its first issue (EVAP code and they replaced the purge pump under warranty). The Silverado had only one CEL for a fuel tank pressure sensor ($30 from gmpartsdirect at the time). Not too bad for 12 years.

 

[Enthusiast]

I put little to no faith in CR. When my parents bought their 13 Grand Caravan, it has a very negative score. 165k miles later, just a few minor problems (thermostat and I think about oxygen sensor). Back in the day, the W body cars were all over the map on their chart with the Regal being at the top of reliability, Impala somewhere in the middle, and the Grand Prix being lower on the chart. Being that these all had the same platform, the same transmission, and similar engines, why such a wide range for reliability? Having known people that owned them, I would place the Buick much further down from the others as the interiors seemed more brittle in the Buick.

A recent example in their reliability rankings concerning appliances is how the Whirlpool brands rank. They are not as a block quite like the GE/Haier brands are, Whirlpool is the highest ranked of Whirlpool group with both Maytag which is higher end than Whirlpool and Amana which is a discount version of Whirlpool are both ranked lower and further apart from each other. In my eyes this doesn't make sense, they all come from the same factories. Logically if entry level Whirlpool appliances were more reliable, Amana would rank higher; or if More high-end Whirlpool appliances were more reliable, Maytag should be rank higher. Considering how similar they all are they should be in a block. Like it was with the GE/Haier.

 

[Ranger83]

CR REQUIRES you to auto-resubscribe when you subscribe.

Back when I subscribed, questioned their “experts” about some tire rankings. We had a company fleet so owned four of the tires tested and their results did not at all coincide with our experience.

They admitted that 1. They never disclose the raw data, and 2. Their rankings included metrics not shown in their results.

Buh-bye.