Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





GM News, New Models and Market Share

1154115421544154615471576

Comments

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    But...back and forth from year to year? I find it hard to believe in real-world applications.

    I believe that problems tend to crop up in the first year of production, but as I've said here before, in forty years of looking at CR's, I've never once--til now--seen a car go from much worse than average to much better than average in one model year--this is overall--before. I'm an auditor, so that is why I'm skeptical of the hard-nosed reality of those ratings.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    I don't get Consumer Reports, but I'd be curious to see how the fuel system rankings on the BMW E9x, 335 series is shown. For the first few years of production, BMW had horrible reliability in its HPFP (high pressure fuel pumps). BMW finally seemed to have that problem resolved after 4-5 years into the model production, and it extended the warranty on that component for the previously affected models.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,737
    I'm an auditor, so that is why I'm skeptical of the hard-nosed reality of those ratings.

    Again, (tired of saying this) don't forget that the CR methodology compares the vehicle to its competitors of the same year. So a vehicle could stay exactly the same, but change color if the competition got much worse or much better year to year.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    I don't get Consumer Reports, but I'd be curious to see how the fuel system rankings on the BMW E9x, 335 series is shown. For the first few years of production, BMW had horrible reliability in its HPFP (high pressure fuel pumps).

    Looked in the April 2011 issue. Could not find model "E9x". But, they did show a category for 330i, 335i and for years 2007,8,9,10 they show full black circles under "fuel system". For years 2005,6 they show full red circles. So, obviously, the change BMW instituted in 2007 model year was a huge mistake by their engineering management.

    So, did CR accurately reflect what BMW owners were experiencing in their 2007-2010 (BAD) and alternatively the good experiences with the 2005-6?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    I know, tlong--I'm also tired of saying this:

    That is true, but then they write "models to avoid" when it may not be a model to avoid or more troublesome than the same model, the years around it. But they don't present it that way.

    I can't even say when I've noticed variances in their reporting like this, but I definitely have.

    The simple fact that CR says in the text about the Juke, 'we expect average reliability', tells me they can't place hard reliance on their survey results for that model, or they'd have a 2011 in their 'models to avoid' and 2012 in their recommended models. I don't know; maybe they do, but I think it's odd the text just said 'average'--almost as if they were embarrassed by sample error in that particular case.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    edited February 2013
    But...back and forth from year to year? I find it hard to believe in real-world applications.

    Seems to happen with data presented on Truedelta too. Not at all uncommon to see reliability change from year to year. The 07 Cobalt is rated more reliable than the 09.

    Could it be sample error? It certainly could be, but I don't doubt reliability can have variation from year to year.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,975
    edited February 2013
    The models tend to be a bit older but you can also compare notes by picking a model here (Used Cars > Appraisal > Reliability). Sometimes there are JD Power ratings but the Identifix ones are broken down by types of problems. Sometimes they jump around from year to year but generally they bunch together.

    You can click on a year with a problem mark to find out what the problem is and the repair cost. Try the '06 Chevy Cobalt for example. "Reliability Ratings by Identifix is based from repair shop-reported issues. Though this data may be for years prior to model you are researching, it exposes how reliable this model platform has been historically." No recurring problems reported after '06.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,505
    Funny, that methodology really gives a clue about specific vehicle faults. Still don't get CR, I can get better info off of general car boards. How something performs relative to others is something odd to stand on. A Lada is better than a Chery.

    And from previous posts, I remember something from marketing about a happy customer tells 3 people, while an unhappy customer tells 9 people. Might skew things.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2013
    So, did CR accurately reflect what BMW owners were experiencing in their 2007-2010 (BAD) and alternatively the good experiences with the 2005-6?

    Thanks for looking that up.

    The Ex label is for different models of the 3 series...E90=4 door sedan, E93=convertible, etc.

    The 33x nomenclature identifies the turbocharged models for the year range being discussed. When CR finally starts listing the 2011-2012 models, look for an improvement in the rating for those 2 years (after the problem was finally rectified).

    Based on what I know about the year range in question, I'd say CR was "dead-on" in its analysis of the fuel system segment.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Was the 2007 a new model?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They were dead on for lots of other import brand problem spots.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,353
    They were dead on for lots of other import brand problem spots.

    They were impeccably accurate with GM's horrid problem spots also. Therefore, the bottom line is they are a good guide. :)

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Since they're so accurate, I guess an '11 Malibu is more reliable than the same year Fusion. I'm thinking it might be more so than the same year Sonata as well but I can't remember.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Was the 2007 a new model?

    If it was, then I buy into the logic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The Sonata turbo seems problematic. Given the non-turbo is not, must be related to the powertrain.

    V1.0 syndrome. Wonder if Hyundai will address the issues soon?

    Interestingly Ford EcoBoost engines also seem to have reliability issues, and what do they have in common?

    DI turbos with High compression but no premium fuel requirement.

    Does the turbo GM engine require premium? Would be interesting to see who gets it right first, in other words a reliable turbo using regular fuel.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    edited February 2013
    Since they're so accurate, I guess an '11 Malibu is more reliable than the same year Fusion.

    Actually that depends on the model.

    A hybrid Fusion is rated more reliable than the Malibu scoring a solid red circle. V6 models are all rated average except for the AWD fusion that is much worse than average. The 4cyl Malibu is rated above average vs average for the 4cyl Fusion in 2011.

    IMO, looking at the ratings, unless you are looking pre '09, the Fusion and Malibu score similarly enough (outside of AWD which isn't available on the 'Bu) that I'd buy the car I liked better.

    Prior to 2010, the Fusion was rated as one of the most reliable sedans. Changes with the 2010 refresh hurt reliability. OTOH prior to 09, the Malibu had a pretty bad ratings.

    Looking at Truedelta, the Malibu and Fusion are rated really close with the Fusion being rated slightly better. But TD reports small sample sizes for the various years on the Malibu.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Funny, that methodology really gives a clue about specific vehicle faults. Still don't get CR, I can get better info off of general car boards.

    Really? Explain how with details vs CR auto tests and their annual car issue in April.

    On GM and CR. Those who subscribe to CR may well look at April issues going back say 10 years. Look at each year, flip through the pages with the circle ratings. Which car company over the years garners most of the full black circles. Who gets most of the full red circles. How is GM doing in this regard? Did it, does it have more black then say Honda, Acura? Is GM improving?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    I've had GM's my whole adult life. My '11 Malibu is rated 'better than average'. I think the only other GM I've owned that garnered a mark like that is a '77 Impala. That said, I cannot say our Malibu is any better at all at the same age than our Cobalt was. And that's not saying the Malibu is bad; just our experience. So, for the GM cars I've owned, in CR's esteemed (cough) opinion, GM's have improved.

    Still, I am less passionate about GM's I've owned recently than those I owned thirty years ago. That says something to me.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Those who have or now "concurrently" own a Chevrolet and a Honda, or a Cadillac and a Lexus, or a Buick and an Acura, or a Ford and a Toyota, etc can have valuable insight as to "relative" merits, pros, cons, comparisons between these brands. Owning, driving, living with a series of ONLY GM, or Ford, or Honda, etc over years, decades does not give perspective.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    edited February 2013
    Chevy says to put 87 octane in the 1.4T in the Sonic and Cruze too. Not only that, theirs WAS around first I believe. Then again, at 138 HP it's probably a comparatively low pressure turbo.
Sign In or Register to comment.