What am I reading?! (CR 2011)

[Nick R]

So I just picked up the annual Consumer Reports auto edition, and I'm looking through it, nothing major. I've said this before, when I subscribed to their website. The cruze, right? It's the only compact car with a "Very poor" reliability rating, and as far as I can tell, it's undeserved. Well, here is the most annoying thing, the reliability history, for the 2011 Cruze
System and reliability
Engine Major: Excellent
Engine Minor: Excellent
Engine Cooling: Very Good
Transmission Major: Excellent
Transmission Minor: Very Good
Drivetrain: Very Good
Fuel System: Excellent
Electrical: Excellent
Climate System: very Good
Suspension: Very good
Brakes: very Good
Paint/trim: Excellent
Body Integrity: Very Good
Body Hardware: Very Good
Power Equipment: Average
Audio System: Very Good

Overall Predicted Reliability: Very Poor


Errrrrrr, am I missing something here?

Seriously, it's $6, go out and pick up a copy. They generally give GM and Chrysler much better scores than in years past, but that one just sticks out to me as completely out there. Where are they getting this "Very poor" from?

 

[d00df00d]

Mistake?

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Mistake?


Nope because in the summary they give for it, under cons is "Reliability", both in the summary, and in the profiles and ratings. And plenty of "Auto news" websites are quoting Consumer Reports on this as saying the cruze is "Well below average" for reliability. It makes no sense to me.

Edit: Ah yes, "Consumer reports bias against GM", we have dismissed that claim.

 

[KrisZ]

It's the same reason why they praised Japanese makes and now seem to love Koreans, i.e their personal agenda. They just make it look like it is a non biased, semi-scientific approach. It works since most readers have no idea what those ratings mean anyway.

 

[HerrStig]

There is a bit of "predicting" going on there which is related to long term experience, and just looking at the 2011 data may not be enough. Over the years, I have had them zap cars I have owned for a long time, and liked, and I must admit they often make me say... yeah, well, they are right about THAT.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Seriously, it's $6, go out and pick up a copy. They generally give GM and Chrysler much better scores than in years past, but that one just sticks out to me as completely out there. Where are they getting this "Very poor" from?


No thanks, I have better things to waste $6 on. That rag isn't worth $0.06

 

[The_Jeff]

Are they still giving mostly good marks to year old new cars on the theory that you can see how well they age if they suddenly get black marks at years 5-6? It could be since Cruzes are still new, they don't have data from 6 years ago, but the start of the "bell curve" doesn't look good.

Not excusing them. But we have to guess their system, as it's not peer reviewed.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Are they still giving mostly good marks to year old new cars on the theory that you can see how well they age if they suddenly get black marks at years 5-6? It could be since Cruzes are still new, they don't have data from 6 years ago, but the start of the "bell curve" doesn't look good.

Not excusing them. But we have to guess their system, as it's not peer reviewed.


Good call.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Nope because in the summary they give for it, under cons is "Reliability", both in the summary, and in the profiles and ratings. And plenty of "Auto news" websites are quoting Consumer Reports on this as saying the cruze is "Well below average" for reliability. It makes no sense to me.

Okay, but what about the breakdown in which all of the initial results are positive? Maybe those were accidentally transposed from a different car or something.

Or, maybe the "poor reliability" comments are based on erroneous data in their databases.

Or, maybe the detailed ratings and the "overall" ratings and comments were derived by different methods. Maybe the detailed ratings err on the "good" side when there's a shortage of data, while overall ratings err on the "bad" side.

There are many possible explanations (albeit few excuses).

 

[Nick R]

I don't think that theory flies, because the Chrysler 200 V6 earned excellent ratings in pretty much every field, AND overall predicted reliability, and that's a mostly new model, and the one it was replacing was among the worst.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Nope because in the summary they give for it, under cons is "Reliability", both in the summary, and in the profiles and ratings. And plenty of "Auto news" websites are quoting Consumer Reports on this as saying the cruze is "Well below average" for reliability. It makes no sense to me.

Okay, but what about the breakdown in which all of the initial results are positive? Maybe those were accidentally transposed from a different car or something.

Or, maybe the "poor reliability" comments are based on erroneous data in their databases.

Or, maybe the detailed ratings and the "overall" ratings and comments were derived by different methods. Maybe the detailed ratings err on the "good" side when there's a shortage of data, while overall ratings err on the "bad" side.

There are many explanations. Few excuses, but many explanations.


It's not a mistake, because their website has pretty much had the cruze listed as well below average since early last year.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

99% People who know nothing about cars are filling out these CR surveys. Everything I bought in the past 20 years using their recommened list (Fridge, Mazda 626 (1st flat rock car), front loader Washer, have been near abysmal. A good bathroom read. The one great quote and truism Ive taken away from CR 'If it says Quiet in the name it will be anything but .... Quiet Kleen, Quiet Kool, etc.' On that I eschewed their recs and bought the noiseist but most solid Hobart/kitchenaid porcelain tub diswasher and I couldnt be happier with it 17 years on.

 

[opus1]

It's just CR bias, pure and simple. If they wanted to be unbiased, they could list the predicted reliability using the old Star Trek computer answer: insufficient data.

Don't get me wrong, I know where they're coming from, and the implication is more along the lines of "given GM's past history, yadda-yadda-yadda, we predict that the car will be more troublesome than average", but that requires text. It sounds like Nick summed up CR's red/black ball chart and for them to rate a brand new car as unreliable in that context is typical CR bias IMHO.

And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

 

[oilmaven]

How are current owners reviewing the Cruze? The car is relatively new but there have to be a few owners who have racked up some miles and can report their experience. My concern with the car is that small turbo...I'm waiting to see how it holds up (never been a big fan of turbos...I wonder why GM didn't go with a normally aspirated DI engine like they've done with a lot of their other models?). I've driven the car and it's very nice...comfortable, quiet and good handling (at least I thought so). The one I drove had the standard 1.8 engine and a 6 speed. GM really needs these new models to be reliable.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: oilmaven
How are current owners reviewing the Cruze? The car is relatively new but there have to be a few owners who have racked up some miles and can report their experience. My concern with the car is that small turbo...I'm waiting to see how it holds up (never been a big fan of turbos...I wonder why GM didn't go with a normally aspirated DI engine like they've done with a lot of their other models?). I've driven the car and it's very nice...comfortable, quiet and good handling (at least I thought so). The one I drove had the standard 1.8 engine and a 6 speed. GM really needs these new models to be reliable.


Considering the number sold, the number of problems appears very low. For example,. truedelta, last I checked, lists the cruze problems per 100 cars at like, 24, which is very low.

They used a 1.4L Turbo to give the feel of having a larger engine while still managing closer to the fuel economy of a smaller one. It is early, but considering the amount they have riding on this car, and the fact that it was a collab between GM US, GM Germany, and GM Korea (Primarily GM Germany iirc), the engine should prove to be solid. But who can say yet?

It's also work noting that "Owner satisfaction" is "Very good" in their listing as well, as it is on edmunds, and other websites.

 

[needsducktape]

Originally Posted By: opus1

And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

Wow they must have never driven a Mitsubishi (anything)...
I would drive a YUGO before owning one of those again.

On a side note: Somewhere in the issue it should have a * or # and say HOW they collect the data and (more important) how/why they give the rating and recommendation.

Look for the fine print, it should be somewhere.

 

[PF52]

I haven't looked at a copy of CR in MANY years. Too many brain cells were dying anytime I cracked open a copy. No thanks!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: opus1
And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

So how are they rating the Chrysler 200 so well, very well in fact, if they're biased against domestic vehicles? How are ANY of the domestic vehicles they rate highly (and there are a lot) rated so well if they're biased?

So many accusations, so little to back it up.

Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean that they're making the data up.

 

[Hokiefyd]

To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at the online version of the data. CR does rate the Cruze to be 62% below average. Major trouble spots for the Cruze appear to be Squeaks & Rattles (they give it a full black circle), Climate System, Body Hardware, and Power Equipment (all with open white circles). Ownership Satisfaction is also only middling with this car, with an open white circle.

Now, compare that with the other car mentioned, the Chrysler 200. There are no black marks at all in the reliability chart. It has only one open white circle, for Body Hardware. Every other metric except for one has a full red circle. Just looking at the data, the 200 is faring better than the Cruze. CR predicts that the 200 will be 46% better than average in terms of reliability.

Sure, I suppose that it's possible that CR is making all of this up. Whether they are or not, I don't know. But there does appear to be a system behind the ratings.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at the online version of the data. CR does rate the Cruze to be 62% below average. Major trouble spots for the Cruze appear to be Squeaks & Rattles (they give it a full black circle), Climate System, Body Hardware, and Power Equipment (all with open white circles). Ownership Satisfaction is also only middling with this car, with an open white circle.

Now, compare that with the other car mentioned, the Chrysler 200. There are no black marks at all in the reliability chart. It has only one open white circle, for Body Hardware. Every other metric except for one has a full red circle. Just looking at the data, the 200 is faring better than the Cruze. CR predicts that the 200 will be 46% better than average in terms of reliability.

Sure, I suppose that it's possible that CR is making all of this up. Whether they are or not, I don't know. But there does appear to be a system behind the ratings.


Well it's interesting that the online data does not match the one published in their magazine.