Some CR data on worse trouble spots,

[rjundi]

Hard to read this from Consumer Reports but basically over 10 years the worst vehicles with a problem in a certain area. Basically a range of 15%-36%. My take is you are more likely than not(majority) to get a relatively reliable vehicle not matter what the make. Even the "worse" rated vehicle in Consumer Reports may have 15-30% with issues, again the majority don't.

Trouble spot Model year Make & model % of reported problems Problem areas
Body Hardware 2001 Chrysler Town & Country/ Dodge Grand Caravan (AWD) 36 Doors or sliding doors, windows, hatch, locks and latches.
Fuel System 2000 Volkswagen Passat (V6, AWD) 34 Check engine light, sensors, emission control devices.
Power Equipment 2004 Volkswagen Touareg 33 Tire pressure monitor, warning lights, keyless entry, exterior/interior lights.
Engine Cooling 2001 & 2000 BMW 7 Series 30 Radiator, antifreeze leaks, water pump, overheating.
Climate System 2002 Kia Sedona 30 A/C compressor, refrigerant leakage, blower (fan) motor.
Brakes 2005 Ford Freestyle 28 Premature wear, pulsation or vibration, squeaking.
Body Integrity 2005 Buick Terraza 28 Squeaks or rattles, wind noise, seals or weather-stripping, loose interior trim or moldings.
Electrical 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line (Hybrid) 26 Battery/hybrid battery, engine harness.
Suspension 2001 Pontiac Bonneville 25 Steering linkage, tie rods, shocks, ball joints, wheel bearings.
Drive System 2002 Buick Rendezvous (AWD) 23 Wheel bearing(s), AWD components.
Engine Minor 1999 Dodge Stratus/Plymouth Breeze 22 Oil leaks, timing belts, engine knock or ping.
Paint/Trim 1999 Dodge Stratus/Plymouth Breeze 22 Paint, rust.
Audio system 2005 Audi A8 21 Navigation system/MMI, video screen, CD or DVD player.
Transmission Minor 2006 Ford Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer (V8, 4WD) 19 Rough shifting, gear selector or linkage, transmission computer.
Transmission Major 2001 Acura CL 17 Transmission rebuild or replacement.
Engine Major 1999 Chevrolet Venture/ Oldsmobile Silhouette/ Pontiac Montana (regular) 15 Head gasket, engine rebuild or replacement.
Exhaust 2003 Nissan Pathfinder 15 Pipes, catalytic converter, muffler, leaks.

 

[bepperb]

I won't point out the one missing, but it's pretty amazing that every major automaker is on here. But this isn't really useable for reliability of a brand, this is more who made what lemons. 30% may not be half, but I wouldn't buy a car with those issues. A "worst" rating from CR used to be 11%+ of respondents had issues, which is imo unacceptable for a company to produce a defect that common.

I agree that any new car should get you 100,000 worry free miles. I think it's in the next 150,000 after that, that the differences really show themselves. Unfortunately, CR stops sampling after 8 years.

 

[GMBoy]

As stated in other posts - CR gets it's data from readers. Therefore, the sample sizes are small and who can tell who's lying about owning a particular car? I do not put ANY faith in ANY Consumer Reports auto data.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

I do put some faith in CR. They recommended the Saturn I have and it has been a good car. I have been browsing the yearly car issue with 2009 models. It is not the last word on things, but gives some helpful general information.

 

[bepperb]

"the sample sizes are small"

Are you kidding? The 2006 survey (I have the book on my desk) drew 1.3 million vehicle reviews. So if they reviewed 100 models, that would be 13000 reviews for each model. They do 8 years, so that's 1625 reviews, on average, for the exact year and model car you're looking for. That's amazing. No matter how many friends you have that say x car is good or bad, it still won't be 1600 people!

Of course there is still bias in their results. Obviously, with any review they do they have a tendancy to exaggerate the difference between the best and worst models. And sure there is probably some bias in the readers submitting their reviews. On the other hand, I think the fact that Toyota has done so poorly the past few years shows that this probably isn't as big a factor as anti-cr people try to make it out to be.

 

[kkreit01]

I notice that Chrysler and GM consistently have lots o' black dots in the used car section.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
As stated in other posts - CR gets it's data from readers. Therefore, the sample sizes are small and who can tell who's lying about owning a particular car? I do not put ANY faith in ANY Consumer Reports auto data.


Maybe I was sheltered and naive, but I think there was a time when very few people would trash a survey by dishonest answers. Of course, a long time ago I decided you can't believe anything anybody says about their sex life or gas millage.

I know people are using internet forums to falsely promote their products or bad mouth the competition.

 

[XS650]

Labman, the validity of the CR surveys is directly proportional to how the car fan's car was rated.

The same people who were saying CR was worthless when Ford was getting dinged for poor quality quote CR as the gospel now that Ford's ratings are up.

Another finagle factor is dealers. If a dealer takes care of a warranty problem with no hassle, it's not a very memorable event. If the dealer makes getting warranty service difficult, a small problem become very memorable.

I tend to remember my wife's 2000 Acura as flawless, then I remember the transmission that was replaced 40,000 miles after the normal warranty was up.

It was much more hassle getting a lousy seat belt retractor fixed on my new GMC when I had it.

 

[Beachboy]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
As stated in other posts - CR gets it's data from readers. Therefore, the sample sizes are small and who can tell who's lying about owning a particular car? I do not put ANY faith in ANY Consumer Reports auto data.


Any reason to believe you don't like CR because they (rightfully) diss GM vehicles? I faithfully complete my annual CR auto questionaire, and I presume most CR subscribers (its limited to subscribers, NOT readers in general) are above average in education and know how to accurately rate their cars.

 

[brianl703]

Never confuse education with intelligence.

 

[ravenchris]

Check: TrueDelta.com

 

[John_K]

My verification of CR's relative accuracy is in rebadges. For example, Honda rebadged that Isuzu thing as their SUV years ago and it uncharacteristically got a lot of black dots. I really doubt people said "well, usually I lie about problems with my Honda, but this is a rebadge so I won't lie about this one." It is an indicator that Honda is usually pretty good.

John

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I notice that Chrysler and GM consistently have lots o' black dots in the used car section.


Black dots don't mean unreliable just compared to average slightly worse. Maybe 10-20% have an issue. That means the balance and MAJORITY don't have any problems.

 

[firemachine69]

I'd hardly call an "engine knock" a minor issue...

 

[swalve]

Originally Posted By: Beachboy
Any reason to believe you don't like CR because they (rightfully) diss GM vehicles? I faithfully complete my annual CR auto questionaire, and I presume most CR subscribers (its limited to subscribers, NOT readers in general) are above average in education and know how to accurately rate their cars.


Not calling you out specifically, but that's the impression I get: CR readers believe they are all above average, and will fill out the forms in a way that they believe will show this.

I was a subscriber for a couple of years, and that experience changed me from a CR believer into a skeptic. The questionnaires are just too subjective to be anything more than an opinion poll. When you take an opinion poll of a self-selected group, your data is garbage.

 

[labman]

Right, take a poll here on how many people use the quick lube places. After reading years of paid pro Japanese hype in the magazine, it is hardly an unbiased group. Yes, 10 years ago, their staff was taking money as consultants to them, just like most of the automotive journalists. A story the MSM buried.

Actually, I have never trusted them since they said radial tires weren't worth it back in the 60's. When they finally got on board with them, they pushed Michelins, which stunk in the rain at that time compared to others.

 

[bepperb]

But how do you people who believe CR is biased toward Japanese makes explain Toyotas horrible surveys recently? That's the most Japanese of the Japanese makes! Or Suzuki, the worst rated company for reliability, that's also from Japan.

I agree with Labman, they have certainly made some bad recommendations. On the flip side, they singlehandedly wiped out STP gas treatment as not doing anything. They also are a big driving force behind American car companies increasing their reliability. So even if you don't trust their results, their existance does improve your quality of ride.

With Ford increasing in the ranks pretty quickly, I'm sure CR will have more fans in the near future.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
"the sample sizes are small"

Are you kidding? The 2006 survey (I have the book on my desk) drew 1.3 million vehicle reviews. So if they reviewed 100 models, that would be 13000 reviews for each model. They do 8 years, so that's 1625 reviews, on average, for the exact year and model car you're looking for. That's amazing. No matter how many friends you have that say x car is good or bad, it still won't be 1600 people!

Of course there is still bias in their results. Obviously, with any review they do they have a tendancy to exaggerate the difference between the best and worst models. And sure there is probably some bias in the readers submitting their reviews. On the other hand, I think the fact that Toyota has done so poorly the past few years shows that this probably isn't as big a factor as anti-cr people try to make it out to be.



1.3 million out of a total of 15-17 million cars produced worldwide is small. And if there is 13,000 surveys on every model that's still small given most models avg between 50-100k a year produced.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Beachboy
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
As stated in other posts - CR gets it's data from readers. Therefore, the sample sizes are small and who can tell who's lying about owning a particular car? I do not put ANY faith in ANY Consumer Reports auto data.


Any reason to believe you don't like CR because they (rightfully) diss GM vehicles? I faithfully complete my annual CR auto questionaire, and I presume most CR subscribers (its limited to subscribers, NOT readers in general) are above average in education and know how to accurately rate their cars.


Not at all. They also rate consumer products backasswards. I have been a subscriber for 15 years - just hoping they'd redo the oil issue which they did great back in the 80's.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: swalve
Originally Posted By: Beachboy
Any reason to believe you don't like CR because they (rightfully) diss GM vehicles? I faithfully complete my annual CR auto questionaire, and I presume most CR subscribers (its limited to subscribers, NOT readers in general) are above average in education and know how to accurately rate their cars.


Not calling you out specifically, but that's the impression I get: CR readers believe they are all above average, and will fill out the forms in a way that they believe will show this.

I was a subscriber for a couple of years, and that experience changed me from a CR believer into a skeptic. The questionnaires are just too subjective to be anything more than an opinion poll. When you take an opinion poll of a self-selected group, your data is garbage.



Well said.